Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jun;7(2):66-71.
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e31820c98ba.

Consensus building for development of outpatient adverse drug event triggers

Hillary J Mull  1 , Jonathan R Nebeker, Stephanie L Shimada, Haytham M A Kaafarani, Peter E Rivard, Amy K Rosen
Affiliations

Consensus building for development of outpatient adverse drug event triggers

Hillary J Mull et al. J Patient Saf. 2011 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: Adverse drug event (ADE) detection is an important priority of patient safety research. Trigger tools have been developed to help identify ADEs. As part of a larger study, we developed complex and specific trigger algorithms intended for concurrent use with clinical care to detect outpatient ADEs. This article assesses the use of a modified Delphi process to obtain expert consensus on the value of these triggers.

Methods: We selected a panel of distinguished clinical and research experts to participate in the modified Delphi process. We created a set of outpatient ADE triggers based on literature review, clinical input, and methodological expertise. The importance of the targeted ADEs, associated drug classes, and trigger logic was used to rate each trigger. Specific criteria were developed to establish consensus.

Results: The modified Delphi process established consensus on 6 outpatient ADE triggers to test with patient-level data based on high ratings of utility for patient-level interventions. These triggers focused on detecting ADEs caused by the following drugs or drug classes: bone marrow toxins, potassium raisers, potassium reducers, creatinine, warfarin, and sedative hypnotics. Participants reported including all aspects of the trigger in their ratings, despite our efforts to separate evaluation of clinical need and trigger logic. Participants' expertise affected the evaluation of trigger rules, leading to contradictory feedback on how to improve trigger design.

Conclusions: The efficiency of the modified Delphi method could be improved by allowing participants to produce an overall summary score that incorporates both the clinical value and the general logic of the trigger. Revising and improving trigger design should be conducted in a separate process limited only to trigger experts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Description of outpatient adverse drug event (ADE) trigger development process
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, Stetson PD, Pizziferri L, Hripcsak G. Detecting adverse events using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Mar-Apr;10(2):115–128. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL. National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. Jama. 2006 Oct 18;296(15):1858–1866. - PubMed
    1. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Jun;14(3):221–225. 1991. discussion 225-226. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Resar RK, Rozich JD, Classen D. Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Dec;12(Suppl 2):ii39–45. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Classen D, Lloyd RC, Provost L, Griffin FA, Resar R. Development and evaluation of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2008;4(3):169–177.

Publication types

MeSH terms