J Patient Saf. 2021 Oct 01;17(7):e593-e598. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000433.

Test-Retest Reliability of an Experienced Global Trigger Tool Review Team.

Journal of patient safety

Brian Bjørn, Jacob Anhøj, Mette Østergaard, Anne Marie Kodal, Christian von Plessen, Rubio-Ramirez, Waggoner

PMID: 29023303 DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000433

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: During a comprehensive patient safety program at a 550-bed regional hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark, we observed an unexpected and unexplained doubling of the median patient harm rate from 56 to 109 harms per 1000 patient days measured by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Meanwhile, other measures of patient safety, including hospital standardized mortality ratio, were stable or improving. Moreover, the review team was very experienced and stable during this period. Thus, we hypothesized that the increase in harm rate was not a true reflection of increased risk of patient harm but the result of the team getting better at identifying harms during GTT reviews.

METHODS: We examined the ability of the GTT review team to reproduce the rate of harm of two separate periods in the same hospital: period 1 (January-June 2010) and period 2 (October 2011-March 2012). For each period, we examined two samples: the original sample that was drawn and used for the ongoing monitoring of harm at the hospital during the safety campaign and a second that we drew and analyzed for this study.

RESULTS: We found increased harm rates both between review 1 and review 2 and between period 1 and period 2. The increase was solely in category E, minor temporary harm.

CONCLUSIONS: The very experienced GTT team could not reproduce harm rates found in earlier reviews. We conclude that GTT in its present form is not a reliable measure of harm rate over time.

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Conflict of interest statement

References

1. Griffin FA, Resar RK. IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events (Second Edition). IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009. - PubMed
2. Doupi P, Svaar H, Bjørn B, et al. Use of the Global Trigger Tool in patient safety improvement efforts: Nordic experiences. Cogn Technol Work. 2015;17:45–54. - PubMed
3. Hibbert PD, Malloy JC, Hooper TD, et al. The application of the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016:28:640–649. - PubMed
4. Naessens JM, Campbell CR, Huddleston JM, et al. A comparison of hospital adverse events identified by three widely used detection methods. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2009;21:301–307. - PubMed
5. Adverse Events in Hospitals: Methods for Identifying Events. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; 2010, OEI-06-08-00221. - PubMed
6. Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, et al. ‘Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:581–589. - PubMed
7. Sharek PJ, Parry G, Goldmann D, et al. Performance characteristics of a methodology to quantify adverse events over time in hospitalized patients. Health Serv Res. 2011;46:654–678. - PubMed
8. Naessens JM, O’Byrne TJ, Johnson MG, et al. Measuring hospital adverse events: assessing inter-rater reliability and trigger performance of the Global Trigger Tool. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2010;22:266–274. - PubMed
9. Schildmeijer K, Nilsson L, Arestedt K, et al. Assessment of adverse events in medical care: lack of consistency between experienced teams using the global trigger tool. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:307–314. - PubMed
10. Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, et al. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2124–2134. - PubMed
11. Learning from the Danish Safer Hospital Programme. Copenhagen: Danish Society for Patient Safety; 2015. Available at: http://patientsikkerhed.dk/content/uploads/2016/02/psskatalog_uk_www.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2017. - PubMed
12. von Plessen C, Kodal AM, Anhøj J. Experiences with global trigger tool reviews in five Danish hospitals: an implementation study. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e001324. - PubMed
13. Global Trigger Tool: En oversættelse af IHI’s værktøj tilpasset danske forhold. In: Global Trigger Tool: A Translation and Adaption of IHI’s Tool to a Danish Setting [in Danish]. Middelfart: Center for Kvalitet; 2008. - PubMed
14. Griffin FA, Resar RK. IHI Global Trigger Tool for measuring adverse events. IHI Innovation Series White Paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2007. - PubMed
15. Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48:661–671. - PubMed
16. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienne, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/. - PubMed
17. Anhøj J, Olesen AV. Run charts revisited: a simulation study of run chart rules for detection of non-random variation in health care processes. PLoS One. 2014;9:e113825. - PubMed
18. Schacter DL, Buckner RL. Priming and the brain. Neuron. 1998;20:185–195. - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article