The emergency department trigger tool: Multicenter trigger query validation
- PMID: 38497320
- DOI: 10.1111/acem.14873
The emergency department trigger tool: Multicenter trigger query validation
Abstract
Objectives: We previously described derivation and validation of the emergency department trigger tool (EDTT) for adverse event (AE) detection. As the first step in our multicenter study of the tool, we validated our computerized screen for triggers against manual review, establishing our use of this automated process for selecting records to review for AEs.
Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of visits to three urban, academic EDs over 18 months by patients ≥ 18 years old. We reviewed 912 records: 852 with at least one of 34 triggers found by the query and 60 records with none. Two first-level reviewers per site each manually screened for triggers. After completion, computerized query results were revealed, and reviewers could revise their findings. Second-level reviewers arbitrated discrepancies. We compare automated versus manual screening by positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs), present population trigger frequencies, proportions of records triggered, and how often manual ratings were changed to conform with the query.
Results: Trigger frequencies ranged from common (>25%) to rare (1/1000) were comparable at U.S. sites and slightly lower at the Canadian site. Proportions of triggered records ranged from 31% to 49.4%. Overall query PPV was 95.4%; NPV was 99.2%. PPVs for individual trigger queries exceeded 90% for 28-31 triggers/site and NPVs were >90% for all but three triggers at one site. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, with disagreement on manual screening results less than 5% of the time. Overall, reviewers amended their findings 1.5% of the time when discordant with query findings, more often when the query was positive than when negative (47% vs. 23%).
Conclusions: The EDTT trigger query performed very well compared to manual review. With some expected variability, trigger frequencies were similar across sites and proportions of triggered records ranged 31%-49%. This demonstrates the feasibility and generalizability of implementing the EDTT query, providing a solid foundation for testing the triggers' utility in detecting AEs.
© 2024 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Griffin FA, Resar RK. IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events (Second Edition). IHI Innovation series white paper. Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009. Accessed June 22, 2020. https://www.ihi.org/resources/white‐papers/ihi‐global‐trigger‐tool‐measu...
-
- Rising KL, Victor TW, Hollander JE, Carr BG. Patient returns to the emergency department: the time‐to‐return curve. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(8):864‐871.
-
- Pham JC, Kirsch TD, Hill PM, DeRuggerio K, Hoffmann B. Seventy‐two‐hour returns may not be a good indicator of safety in the emergency department: a national study. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(4):390‐397.
-
- Griffey RT, Bohan JS. Healthcare provider complaints to the emergency department: a preliminary report on a new quality improvement instrument. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(5):344‐346.
-
- Griffey RT, Schneider RM, Sharp BR, et al. Description and yield of current quality and safety review in selected US academic emergency departments. J Patient Saf. 2017;16:e245‐e249. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000379
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials