4.1 Article

Applying Trigger Tools to Detect Adverse Events Associated With Outpatient Surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF PATIENT SAFETY
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 45-59

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e31820d164b

关键词

patient safety; adverse events; triggers; outpatient surgery; quality

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [HHSA290200600012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of 5 triggers to detect adverse events (AEs) associated with outpatient surgery. Triggers use surveillance algorithms derived from clinical logic to flag cases where AEs have most likely occurred. Current efforts to detect AEs have focused primarily on the inpatient setting, despite the increase in outpatient surgery in all health care settings. Methods: Using trigger logic, we retrospectively evaluated data from 3 large health care systems' electronic medical records. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had an outpatient (same-day) surgery in 2007 and at least 1 clinical note in the 6 months after the surgery. Two nurse abstractors reviewed a sample of trigger-flagged cases from each health care system. After reaching interrater reliability targets (k > 0.60), we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of each trigger and the confidence interval of the estimate. Results: The surgical triggers flagged between 1% and 22% of the outpatient surgery cases, with a wide range in PPVs (6.0%-62.0%). The pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis and emergency department triggers had the lowest proportion of flagged cases along with the highest PPVs, showing the most promise for screening cases with a high probability of AE occurrence. Conclusions: Triggers may be useful in identifying a narrow set of surgeries for further review to determine if a surgical AE occurred, complementing existing tools and initiatives used to detect AEs. Improved detection of AEs in outpatient surgery should help target potential areas for quality improvement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据