Daphne C Erkelens1, Frans H Rutten2, Loes T Wouters2, Esther de Groot2, Roger A Damoiseaux2, Arno W Hoes2, Dorien L Zwart2. 1. Department of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: D.C.A.Erkelens@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Root cause analyses of serious adverse events (SAE) in out-of-hours primary care (OHS-PC) often point to errors in telephone triage. Such analyses are, however, hampered by hindsight bias. We assessed whether experts, blinded to the outcome, recognize (un)safety of triage of patients with chest discomfort, and we quantified inter-rater reliability. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a case-control study with triage recordings from 2013-2017 at OHS-PC. Cases were missed acute coronary syndromes (ACSs, considered as SAE). These cases were age- and gender-matched 1:8 with the controls, sampled from the remainder of people calling for chest discomfort. Fifteen experts listened to the recordings and rated the safety of triage. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of recognizing an ACS and the intraclass correlation. RESULTS: In total, 135 calls (15 SAE, 120 matched controls) were relistened. The experts identified ACSs with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-0.95) and a specificity of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43-0.58). Cases were rated significantly more often as unsafe than the controls (73.3% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). The inter-rater reliability for safety was poor: ICC 0.16 (95% CI: 0.00-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Blinded experts rated calls of missed ACSs more often as unsafe than matched control calls, but with a low level of agreement among the experts.
OBJECTIVE: Root cause analyses of serious adverse events (SAE) in out-of-hours primary care (OHS-PC) often point to errors in telephone triage. Such analyses are, however, hampered by hindsight bias. We assessed whether experts, blinded to the outcome, recognize (un)safety of triage of patients with chest discomfort, and we quantified inter-rater reliability. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a case-control study with triage recordings from 2013-2017 at OHS-PC. Cases were missed acute coronary syndromes (ACSs, considered as SAE). These cases were age- and gender-matched 1:8 with the controls, sampled from the remainder of people calling for chest discomfort. Fifteen experts listened to the recordings and rated the safety of triage. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of recognizing an ACS and the intraclass correlation. RESULTS: In total, 135 calls (15 SAE, 120 matched controls) were relistened. The experts identified ACSs with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71-0.95) and a specificity of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43-0.58). Cases were rated significantly more often as unsafe than the controls (73.3% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). The inter-rater reliability for safety was poor: ICC 0.16 (95% CI: 0.00-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Blinded experts rated calls of missed ACSs more often as unsafe than matched control calls, but with a low level of agreement among the experts.
Authors: Daphne C Erkelens; Frans H Rutten; Loes T Wouters; Harmke G Kirkels; Judith M Poldervaart; Esther de Groot; Roger A Damoiseaux; Arno W Hoes; Dorien L Zwart Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.844