Suppr超能文献

加拿大儿科触发工具的开发和验证描述。

Description of the development and validation of the Canadian Paediatric Trigger Tool.

机构信息

Department of Paediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 May;20(5):416-23. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.041152. Epub 2011 Jan 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe the process of developing and validating the Canadian Association of Paediatric Health Centres Trigger Tool (CPTT).

METHODS

Five existing trigger tools were consolidated with duplicate triggers eliminated. After a risk analysis and modified Delphi process, the tool was reduced from 94 to 47 triggers. Feasibility of use was tested, reviewing 40 charts in three hospitals. For validation, charts were randomly selected across four age groups, half medical/half surgical diagnoses, from six paediatric academic health sciences centres. 591 charts were reviewed by six nurses (for triggers and adverse events (AEs)) and three physicians (for AEs only). The incidence of trigger- and AE-positive charts was documented, and the sensitivity and specificity of the tool to identify charts with AEs were determined. Identification of AEs by nurses and physicians was compared. The positive predictive value (PPV) of each trigger was calculated and the ratio of false- to true-positive AE predictors analysed for each trigger.

RESULTS

Nurses rated the CPTT easy to use and identified triggers in 61.1% (361/591; 95% CI 57.2 to 65.0) of patient charts; physicians identified AEs in 15.1% (89/ 591, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.43). Over a third of patients with AEs were neonates. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.88 and 0.44, respectively. Nurse and physician AE assessments correlated poorly. The PPV for each trigger ranged from 0 to 88.3%. Triggers with a false/true-positive ratio of >0.7 were eliminated, resulting in the final 35-trigger CPTT.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPTT is the first validated, comprehensive trigger tool available to detect AEs in children hospitalised in acute care facilities.

摘要

目的

描述加拿大儿科保健中心触发工具(CPTT)的开发和验证过程。

方法

合并了 5 种现有的触发工具,去除了重复的触发因素。经过风险分析和修改后的 Delphi 流程,该工具的触发因素从 94 个减少到 47 个。在三个医院中对 40 份病历进行了使用可行性测试。为了验证,从六个儿科学术卫生科学中心随机选择了四个年龄组的一半医疗/一半手术诊断的病历。六名护士(用于触发因素和不良事件(AE))和三名医生(仅用于 AE)审查了 591 份病历。记录了触发因素和 AE 阳性病历的发生率,并确定了该工具识别 AE 病历的敏感性和特异性。比较了护士和医生对 AE 的识别。计算了每个触发因素的阳性预测值(PPV),并分析了每个触发因素的假阳性和真阳性 AE 预测因子的比值。

结果

护士认为 CPTT 使用方便,在 591 份病历中的 61.1%(361/591;95%CI 57.2%至 65.0%)中识别出了触发因素;医生在 591 份病历中识别出了 15.1%(89/591,95%CI 0.23 至 0.43)的 AE。三分之一以上的 AE 患者是新生儿。敏感性和特异性分别为 0.88 和 0.44。护士和医生的 AE 评估相关性较差。每个触发因素的 PPV 范围为 0 至 88.3%。虚假/真实阳性比>0.7 的触发因素被删除,最终得到了 35 个触发因素的 CPTT。

结论

CPTT 是第一个经过验证的全面触发工具,可用于检测在急症护理设施住院的儿童的 AE。

相似文献

1
Description of the development and validation of the Canadian Paediatric Trigger Tool.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 May;20(5):416-23. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.041152. Epub 2011 Jan 17.
2
Validation of triggers and development of a pediatric trigger tool to identify adverse events.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec 21;14:655. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0655-5.
3
Adverse events among children in Canadian hospitals: the Canadian Paediatric Adverse Events Study.
CMAJ. 2012 Sep 18;184(13):E709-18. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.112153. Epub 2012 Jul 30.
4
Comparison of traditional trigger tool to data warehouse based screening for identifying hospital adverse events.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Feb;22(2):130-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001102. Epub 2012 Oct 4.
5
Development of a trigger tool to identify adverse events and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jul;27(7):502-511. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006755. Epub 2017 Sep 29.
6
Performance of the Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety (GAPPS) Tool.
Pediatrics. 2016 Jun;137(6). doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4076.
9
Development of an electronic trigger tool at a children's hospital within an academic medical center.
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2019 Nov 13;76(Supplement_4):S107-S113. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxz222.
10
The Emergency Department Trigger Tool: Validation and Testing to Optimize Yield.
Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Dec;27(12):1279-1290. doi: 10.1111/acem.14101. Epub 2020 Sep 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Adverse events in the neonatal intensive care unit identified by triggers.
Front Pharmacol. 2025 May 30;16:1539687. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1539687. eCollection 2025.
2
Experiences of the development and use of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool.
BMJ Open Qual. 2025 May 15;14(2):e003306. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003306.
4
Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety Tool for identifying safety incidents in pediatric patients.
Rev Paul Pediatr. 2023 May 15;41:e2022076. doi: 10.1590/1984-0462/2023/41/2022076. eCollection 2023.
5
Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2023 Mar;32(3):133-149. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015298. Epub 2022 Dec 26.
6
How safe are paediatric emergency departments? A national prospective cohort study.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Oct 19;31(11):806-817. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014608.
8
Development of the Japanese version of the Intensive Care Unit Trigger Tool to detect adverse events in critically ill patients.
Acute Med Surg. 2021 Jun 22;8(1):e672. doi: 10.1002/ams2.672. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
9
An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital.
Perspect Clin Res. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):33-39. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_30_19. Epub 2019 Dec 20.

本文引用的文献

2
A comparison of hospital adverse events identified by three widely used detection methods.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2009 Aug;21(4):301-7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzp027.
3
The incidence of adverse events in Swedish hospitals: a retrospective medical record review study.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2009 Aug;21(4):285-91. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzp025. Epub 2009 Jun 25.
4
The inter-rater agreement of retrospective assessments of adverse events does not improve with two reviewers per patient record.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jan;63(1):94-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.004. Epub 2009 May 26.
5
Does error and adverse event reporting by physicians and nurses differ?
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Sep;34(9):537-45. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34068-9.
10
Combining ratings from multiple physician reviewers helped to overcome the uncertainty associated with adverse event classification.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;60(9):892-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.019. Epub 2007 Apr 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验