• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

触发因素在一组死亡患者样本中回顾性预测潜在可预防不良事件的能力。

The ability of triggers to retrospectively predict potentially preventable adverse events in a sample of deceased patients.

作者信息

Klein Dorthe O, Rennenberg Roger J M W, Koopmans Richard P, Prins Martin H

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Prev Med Rep. 2017 Nov 3;8:250-255. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.016. eCollection 2017 Dec.

DOI:10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.016
PMID:29181297
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5700821/
Abstract

Several trigger systems have been developed to screen medical records of hospitalized patients for adverse events (AEs). Because it's too labor-intensive to screen the records of all patients, usually a sample is screened. Our sample consists of patients who died during their stay because chances of finding preventable AEs in this subset are highest. Records were reviewed for fifteen triggers ( = 2182). When a trigger was present, the records were scrutinized by specialized medical doctors who searched for AEs. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the total trigger system and of the individual triggers was calculated. Additional analyses were performed to identify a possible optimization of the trigger system. In our sample, the trigger system had an overall PPV for AEs of 47%, 17% for potentially preventable AEs. More triggers present in a record increased the probability of detecting an AE. Adjustments to the trigger system slightly increased the positive predictive value but missed about 10% of the AEs detected with the original system. In our sample of deceased patients the trigger system has a PPV comparable to other samples. However still, an enormous amount of time and resources are spent on cases without AEs or with non-preventable AEs. Possibly, the performance could be further improved by combining triggers with clinical scores and laboratory results. This could be promising in reducing the costly and labor-intensive work of screening medical records.

摘要

已经开发了几种触发系统来筛查住院患者的医疗记录以发现不良事件(AE)。由于筛查所有患者的记录过于耗费人力,通常只筛查一个样本。我们的样本包括住院期间死亡的患者,因为在这个子集中发现可预防不良事件的可能性最高。对记录进行了15种触发因素的审查(n = 2182)。当出现触发因素时,由专业医生仔细检查记录以寻找不良事件。计算了整个触发系统和各个触发因素的阳性预测值(PPV)。进行了额外的分析以确定触发系统可能的优化方法。在我们的样本中,触发系统对不良事件的总体PPV为47%,对潜在可预防不良事件的PPV为17%。记录中出现的触发因素越多,检测到不良事件的可能性就越大。对触发系统的调整略微提高了阳性预测值,但遗漏了约10%用原始系统检测到的不良事件。在我们的死亡患者样本中,触发系统的PPV与其他样本相当。然而,仍然有大量的时间和资源花费在没有不良事件或有不可预防不良事件的病例上。可能通过将触发因素与临床评分和实验室结果相结合,性能可以进一步提高。这在减少筛查医疗记录的昂贵且耗费人力的工作方面可能很有前景。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d4d8/5700821/e42113a9b3a1/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d4d8/5700821/e42113a9b3a1/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d4d8/5700821/e42113a9b3a1/gr1.jpg

相似文献

1
The ability of triggers to retrospectively predict potentially preventable adverse events in a sample of deceased patients.触发因素在一组死亡患者样本中回顾性预测潜在可预防不良事件的能力。
Prev Med Rep. 2017 Nov 3;8:250-255. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.016. eCollection 2017 Dec.
2
The Harvard medical practice study trigger system performance in deceased patients.哈佛医学实践研究触发系统在已故患者中的性能。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 8;19(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3839-6.
3
The Emergency Department Trigger Tool: Validation and Testing to Optimize Yield.急诊科触发工具:验证和测试以优化效果。
Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Dec;27(12):1279-1290. doi: 10.1111/acem.14101. Epub 2020 Sep 1.
4
Performance of a Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in Oncology.用于识别肿瘤学不良事件的触发工具的性能
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Mar;13(3):e223-e230. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.016634. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
5
Validation of triggers and development of a pediatric trigger tool to identify adverse events.验证触发因素并开发用于识别不良事件的儿科触发工具。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec 21;14:655. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0655-5.
6
Characteristics associated with the occurrence of adverse events: a retrospective medical record review using the Global Trigger Tool in a fully digitalized tertiary teaching hospital in Korea.与不良事件发生相关的特征:使用全球触发工具对韩国一家完全数字化的三级教学医院进行回顾性病历审查。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;20(1):27-35. doi: 10.1111/jep.12075. Epub 2013 Jul 29.
7
Feasibility of Electronic Health Record-Based Triggers in Detecting Dental Adverse Events.基于电子健康记录的触发器检测牙科不良事件的可行性
Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jul;9(3):646-653. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1668088. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
8
Electronic health record-based triggers to detect adverse events after outpatient orthopaedic surgery.基于电子健康记录的触发器,用于检测门诊骨科手术后的不良事件。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jan;25(1):25-30. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004332. Epub 2015 Sep 10.
9
Comparison of traditional trigger tool to data warehouse based screening for identifying hospital adverse events.传统触发工具与数据仓库筛查在识别医院不良事件中的比较。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Feb;22(2):130-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001102. Epub 2012 Oct 4.
10
Applying trigger tools to detect adverse events associated with outpatient surgery.运用触发工具来检测与门诊手术相关的不良事件。
J Patient Saf. 2011 Mar;7(1):45-59. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e31820d164b.

引用本文的文献

1
Implementation of Electronic Triggers to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments.实施电子触发器以识别急诊科的诊断错误。
JAMA Intern Med. 2025 Feb 1;185(2):143-151. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.6214.
2
Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.使用触发工具检测到的不良事件的变化:系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 1;17(9):e0273800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273800. eCollection 2022.
3
Validation of an electronic trigger to measure missed diagnosis of stroke in emergency departments.

本文引用的文献

1
Epidemiology of medical adverse events: perspectives from a single institute in Taiwan.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2016 Jun;115(6):434-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.11.004. Epub 2016 Mar 21.
2
Is researching adverse events in hospital deaths a good way to describe patient safety in hospitals: a retrospective patient record review study.研究医院死亡中的不良事件是否是描述医院患者安全的好方法:一项回顾性患者记录审查研究。
BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 9;5(7):e007380. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007380.
3
Identifying Previously Undetected Harm: Piloting the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool in the Veterans Health Administration.识别先前未被发现的伤害:在退伍军人健康管理局试点医疗改进研究所的全球触发工具
验证一种电子触发工具,以测量急诊科漏诊的脑卒中病例。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Sep 18;28(10):2202-2211. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab121.
4
Rate of Preventable Mortality in Hospitalized Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.住院患者可预防死亡率:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jul;35(7):2099-2106. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05592-5. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
5
Letter to the Editor: A follow-up to 'The ability of triggers to predict potentially preventable adverse events in a sample of deceased patients'.致编辑的信:对“触发因素预测已故患者样本中潜在可预防不良事件的能力”的后续跟进。
Prev Med Rep. 2019 Jun 16;15:100920. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100920. eCollection 2019 Sep.
6
The Harvard medical practice study trigger system performance in deceased patients.哈佛医学实践研究触发系统在已故患者中的性能。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 8;19(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3839-6.
7
Adverse event detection by medical record review is reproducible, but the assessment of their preventability is not.病历审查中的不良事件检测具有可重复性,但对其可预防性的评估则不然。
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 29;13(11):e0208087. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208087. eCollection 2018.
Qual Manag Health Care. 2015 Jul-Sep;24(3):140-6. doi: 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000060.
4
Are measurements of patient safety culture and adverse events valid and reliable? Results from a cross sectional study.患者安全文化与不良事件的测量是否有效且可靠?一项横断面研究的结果。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 May 2;15:186. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0852-x.
5
Application of the IHI Global Trigger Tool in measuring the adverse event rate in a Turkish healthcare setting.IHI全球触发工具在衡量土耳其医疗环境中不良事件发生率方面的应用。
Int J Risk Saf Med. 2015;27(1):11-21. doi: 10.3233/JRS-150639.
6
Characterisations of adverse events detected in a university hospital: a 4-year study using the Global Trigger Tool method.某大学医院中检测到的不良事件特征:一项采用全球触发工具法的4年研究。
BMJ Open. 2014 May 28;4(5):e004879. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004879.
7
The Global Trigger Tool shows that one out of seven patients suffers harm in Palestinian hospitals: challenges for launching a strategic safety plan.全球触发工具显示,七分之一的患者在巴勒斯坦医院遭受伤害:启动战略安全计划面临的挑战。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2013 Dec;25(6):640-7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt066. Epub 2013 Oct 17.
8
Characteristics associated with the occurrence of adverse events: a retrospective medical record review using the Global Trigger Tool in a fully digitalized tertiary teaching hospital in Korea.与不良事件发生相关的特征:使用全球触发工具对韩国一家完全数字化的三级教学医院进行回顾性病历审查。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;20(1):27-35. doi: 10.1111/jep.12075. Epub 2013 Jul 29.
9
Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool".不良事件的检测是否受病历审查方法的影响?对“哈佛医疗实践研究”方法和“全球触发工具”的评估。
Patient Saf Surg. 2013 Apr 15;7(1):10. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-10.
10
Factors associated with adverse events resulting from medical errors in the emergency department: two work better than one.急诊科医疗差错导致不良事件的相关因素:两人协作效果更佳。
J Emerg Med. 2013 Aug;45(2):157-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.11.061. Epub 2013 Feb 21.