Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China

Authors: Shan Wu, Qinan Yin, Liuyun Wu, Yue Wu, Nan Yu, Junfeng Yan, Yuan Bian

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pregnant women belong to the special population of drug therapy, and their physiological state, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are significantly different from the general population. Drug safety during pregnancy involves two generations, which is a hot issue widely concerned in the whole society. Global Trigger Tool (GTT) of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has been wildly used as a patient safety measurement strategy by several institutions and national programs, and the effectiveness had been demonstrated. But only one study reports the use of GTT in obstetric delivery until now. The aim of the study is to establish triggers detecting adverse drug events (ADEs) suitable for obstetric inpatients on the basis of the GTT, to examine the performance of the obstetric triggers in detecting ADEs experienced by obstetric units compared with the spontaneous reporting system and GTT, and to assess the utility and value of the obstetric trigger tool in identifying ADEs of obstetric inpatients.

Methods

Based on a literature review searched in PubMed and CNKI from January of 1997 to October of 2023, retrospective local obstetric ADEs investigations, relevant obstetric guidelines and the common adverse reactions of obstetric therapeutic drugs were involved to establish the initial obstetric triggers. According to the Delphi method, two rounds of expert questionnaire survey were conducted among 16 obstetric and neonatological physicians and pharmacists until an agreement was reached. A retrospective study was conducted to identity ADEs in 300 obstetric inpatient records at the Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital from June 1 to September 30, 2018. Two trained junior pharmacists analyzed the first eligible records independently, and the included records reviewed by trained pharmacist and physician to identify ADEs. Sensitivity and specificity of the established obstetric triggers were assessed by the number of ADEs/100 patients and positive predictive value with the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and GTT. Excel 2010 and SPSS22 were used for data analysis.

Results

Through two rounds of expert investigation, 39 preliminary triggers were established that comprised four modules (12 laboratory tests, 9 medications, 14 symptoms, and 4 outcomes). A total of 300 medical records were reviewed through the obstetric triggers, of which 48 cases of ADEs were detected, with an incidence of ADEs of 16%. Among the 39 obstetric triggers, 22 (56.41%) were positive and 11 of them detected ADEs. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 36.36%, and the number of ADEs/100 patients was 16.33 (95% CI, 4.19–17.81). The ADE detection rate, positive trigger rate, and PPV for the obstetric triggers were significantly augmented, confirming that the obstetric triggers were more specific and sensitive than SRS and GTT.

Conclusion

The obstetric triggers were proven to be sensitive and specific in the active monitoring of ADE for obstetric inpatients, which might serve as a reference for ADE detection of obstetric inpatients at medical institutions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Servi D, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995;274(1):29–34.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Gandhi TK, Seger DL, Bates DW. Identifying drug safety issues: from research to practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12(1):69–76.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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 [published correction appears in Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(6):1217]. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(4):581–589.
5.
FDA. Pharmacovigilance planning(PvP). Geneva; 2003.
6.
Sultana J, Cutroneo P, Trifirò G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J PharmacolPharmacother. 2013;4(Suppl 1):73–S77.CrossRef
7.
Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Alghamdy MS, Randhawa MA, Al-Wahhas MH, Al-Jumaan MA. Admissions for drug-related problems at the Emergency Department of a University Hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2015;22(1):44–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Zed PJ, Abu-Laban RB, Balen RM, et al. Incidence, severity and preventability of medication-related visits to the emergency department: a prospective study. CMAJ. 2008;178(12):1563–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
11.
Classen DC, Lloyd RC, Provost L. Development and evaluation of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2008;4(3).
12.
Nydert P, Unbeck M, Pukk Härenstam K, Norman M, Lindemalm S. Drug use and type of adverse drug events-identified by a trigger Tool in different units in a Swedish Pediatric Hospital. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2020;12:31–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
El Saghir A, Dimitriou G, Scholer M, Istampoulouoglou I, Heinrich P, Baumgartl K, Schwendimann R, Bassetti S, Leuppi-Taegtmeyer A. Development and implementation of an e-Trigger Tool for adverse drug events in a Swiss University Hospital. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2021;13:251–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Toscano Guzmán MD, Banqueri MG, Otero MJ, Fidalgo SS, Noguera IF, Guerrero MCP. Validating a trigger Tool for detecting adverse drug events in Elderly patients with multimorbidity (TRIGGER-CHRON). J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e976–82.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zhang N, Pan LY, Chen WY, Ji HH, Peng GQ, Tang ZW, Wang HL, Jia YT, Gong J. A risk-factor model for Antineoplastic Drug-Induced Serious adverse events in Cancer inpatients: a retrospective study based on the Global Trigger Tool and Machine Learning. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:896104.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Valkonen V, Haatainen K, Saano S, Tiihonen M. Evaluation of global trigger tool as a medication safety tool for adverse drug event detection-a cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;79(5):617–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Magnéli M, Kelly-Pettersson P, Rogmark C, Gordon M, Sköldenberg O, Unbeck M. Timing of adverse events in patients undergoing acute and elective hip arthroplasty Surgery: a multicentre cohort study using the global trigger Tool. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6):e064794.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Brandão MB, Hermann AP, Lima MN. Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety Tool for identifying safety incidents in pediatric patients. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2023;41:e2022076.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Dillner P, Unbeck M, Norman M, Nydert P, Härenstam KP, Lindemalm S, Wackernagel D, Förberg U. Identifying neonatal adverse events in preterm and term infants using a paediatric trigger tool. Acta Paediatr. 2023;112(8):1670–82.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Griffey RT, Schneider RM, Todorov AA. Near-Miss events detected using the Emergency Department trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2023;19(2):59–66.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Skoogh A, Hall-Lord ML, Bååth C, Bojö AS. Adverse events in women giving birth in a labor ward: a retrospective record review study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1093.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Qiao J, Wang Y, Li X, Jiang F, Zhang Y, Ma J, Song Y, Ma J, Fu W, Pang R, Zhu Z, Zhang J, Qian X, Wang L, Wu J, Chang HM, Leung PCK, Mao M, Ma D, Guo Y, Qiu J, Liu L, Wang H, Norman RJ, Lawn J, Black RE, Ronsmans C, Patton G, Zhu J, Song L, Hesketh T. A Lancet Commission on 70 years of women’s reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in China. Lancet. 2021;397(10293):2497–536.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Sutan R, Aminuddin NA, Mahdy ZA. Prevalence, maternal characteristics, and birth outcomes of preeclampsia: a cross-sectional study in a single tertiary healthcare center in greater Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Front Public Health. 2022;10:973271.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Intarut N, Mori R, Ganchimeg T, Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal Newborn Health Research Network. Advanced maternal age and pregnancy outcomes: a multicountry assessment. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 1):49–56.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Cunningham FG, et al. Williams Obstetrics. 24 ed. Diabetes Mellitus. 2014, New York: McGraw-Hill. 1358.
26.
Frederiksen MC. Physiologic changes in pregnancy and their effect on drug disposition. Semin Perinatol. 2001;25(3):120–3.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Balon M, Tessier S, Damase-Michel C, Cottin J, Lambert A, Thompson MA, Benevent J, Lacroix I. Adverse drug reactions in pregnant women: do they differ from those in non-pregnant women of childbearing age? Therapie. 2023 Mar-Apr;78(2):165–73.
28.
Shan W, Junfeng Y, Yuan B, et al. Retrospective Analysis of Gestational Adverse Drug Reactions from Sichuan Center for Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring from Nov. 2016 to Nov. 2017. China Pharmacy. 2019.30(15):2125–2129.
29.
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Sisi Y, Xin F. Guidelines for the prevention of medication errors during pregnancy and lactation. Adverse Drug Reactions Journal. 2017;19(03):163–7.
31.
32.
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 5. Published: November 27. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.
33.
Zimlichman E, Gueta I, Daliyot D, Ziv A, Oberman B, Hochman O, Tamir O, Tal O, Loebstein R. Adverse drug event rate in Israeli hospitals: validation of an international trigger Tool and an international comparison study. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018;20(11):665–9.PubMed
34.
Hwang SH, Ah YM, Jun KH, Jung JW, Kang MG, Park HK, Lee EK, Park HK, Chung JE, Kim SH, Lee JY. Development and Validation of a Trigger Tool for Identifying Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 13;18(16):8572.
35.
de Almeida SM, Romualdo A, de Abreu Ferraresi A, Zelezoglo GR, Marra AR, Edmond MB. Use of a trigger tool to detect adverse drug reactions in an emergency department. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2017;18(1):71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Tchijevitch OA, Nielsen LP, Lisby M. Life-threatening and fatal adverse drug events in a Danish University Hospital. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(6):e562–7.
37.
Gohil JB, Desai CK, Panchal JR, Patel RR, Rathod GH. An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Indian J Pharmacol. 2022 Jan-Feb;54(1):19–23.
38.
39.
Silva MDDG, Martins MAP, Viana LG, Passaglia LG, de Menezes RR, Oliveira JAQ, da Silva JLP, Ribeiro ALP. Evaluation of accuracy of IHI trigger Tool in identifying adverse drug events: a prospective observational study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(10):2252–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Karpov A, Parcero C, Mok CP, Panditha C, Yu E, Dempster L, Hohl. Performance of trigger tools in identifying adverse drug events in emergency department patients: a validation study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Oct;82(4):1048–57.
41.
Haukland EC, Mevik K, von Plessen C, Nieder C, Vonen B. Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(1):e000377.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Xu XD, Yuan YJ, Zhao LM, Li Y, Zhang HZ, Wu H. Adverse events at baseline in a Chinese General Hospital: a pilot study of the global trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(4):269–73.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Aikawa G, Ouchi A, Sakuramoto H, Ono C, Hatozaki C, Okamoto M, Hoshino T, Shimojo N, Inoue Y. Impact of adverse events on patient outcomes in a Japanese intensive care unit: a retrospective observational study. Nurs Open. 2021;8(6):3271–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Griffey RT, Schneider RM, Sharp BR, Vrablik MC, Adler L. Practical considerations in use of trigger Tool Methodology in the Emergency Department. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e837–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Haixia Z, Jiaxing F, Jinchun L. Application of ADE trigger Tool in adverse drug event monitoring. Pharm Clin Res. 2016;24(05):p399–403.
46.
Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(3):194–200.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Kurutkan MN, Usta E, Orhan F, Simsekler MC. Application of the IHI Global Trigger Tool in measuring the adverse event rate in a Turkish healthcare setting. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2015;27(1):11–21.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Hwang JI, Chin HJ, Chang YS. 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. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(1):27–35.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Xiaodi X, Hua W, Yijie Y, et al. Comparing the adverse drug events monitored by Retrospective global trigger Tool and spontaneous reporting methods. Chin J Pharmacoepidemiology. 2016;25(08):499–502.
50.
von Plessen C, Kodal AM, Anhøj J. Experiences with global trigger tool reviews in five Danish hospitals: an implementation study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5):e001324.CrossRef
51.
YuanB, Junfeng Y, Shan D, et al. Application of global trigger tool in detecting adverse drug events. Chin J New Drugs Clin Remedies. 2015;34(09):726–31.
52.
Carnevali L, Krug B, Amant F, et al. Performance of the adverse drug event trigger tool and the global trigger tool for identifying adverse drug events: experience in a Belgian hospital. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(11):1414–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hibbert P, Williams H. The use of a global trigger tool to inform quality and safety in Australian general practice: a pilot study. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43(10):723–6.PubMed
54.
Härkänen M, Kervinen M, Ahonen J, Voutilainen A, Turunen H, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Patient-specific risk factors of adverse drug events in adult inpatients - evidence detected using the global trigger Tool method. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(3–4):582–91.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Menéndez Fraga MD, Cueva Álvarez MA, Franco Castellanos MR, et al. Cumplimiento Del Listado De verificación quirúrgica Y Los eventos quirúrgicos detectados mediante la herramienta del global trigger Tool [Compliance with the surgical safety checklist and surgical events detected by the global trigger Tool]. Rev Calid Asist. 2016;31(Suppl 1):20–3.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Guzmán-Ruiz O, Ruiz-López P, Gómez-Cámara A, Ramírez-Martín M. Detección de eventos adversos en pacientes adultos hospitalizados mediante El método Global TriggerTool [Detection of adverse events in hospitalized adult patients by using the global trigger Tool method]. Rev Calid Asist. 2015;30(4):166–74.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Kaafarani HM, Rosen AK, Nebeker JR, et al. Development of trigger tools for surveillance of adverse events in ambulatory Surgery. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):425–9.PubMed
58.
Pérez Zapata AI, Gutiérrez Samaniego M, Rodríguez Cuéllar E, Andrés Esteban EM. Gómez De La Cámara A, Ruiz López P. Detection of adverse events in general Surgery using the trigger Tool methodology. Cir Esp. 2015;93(2):84–90.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Najjar S, Hamdan M, Euwema MC, et al. The Global Trigger Tool shows that one out of seven patients suffers harm in Palestinian hospitals: challenges for launching a strategic safety plan. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25(6):640–7.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Unbeck M, Schildmeijer K, Henriksson P, et al. Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? An evaluation of the Harvard Medical Practice Study method and the global trigger Tool. Patient Saf Surg. 2013;7(1):10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Deilkås ET, Risberg MB, Haugen M, et al. Exploring similarities and differences in hospital adverse event rates between Norway and Sweden using global trigger Tool. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e012492.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Mortaro A, Moretti F, Pascu D, et al. Adverse events detection through global trigger Togy: results from a 5-Year study in an Italian Hospital and opportunities to improve interrater reliability. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(6):451–7.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Härkänen M, Turunen H, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Differences between methods of detecting medication errors: a Secondary Analysis of Medication Administration errors using Incident reports, the global trigger Tool Method, and observations. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(2):168–76.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Hoffmann-Völkl G, Kästenbauer T, Mück U, Zottl M, Huf W, Ettl B. Detektion unerwünschter Ereignisse mittels IHI global trigger Tool Im Kontext Der Einführung eines Risikomanagement-Systems: Eine Retrospektive Studie über einen Zeitraum Von 3 Jahren an Der Herz- Und Gefäßchirurgischen Abteilung eines Wiener Schwerpunktkrankenhauses [Detection of adverse events using IHI global trigger Tool during the adoption of a risk management system: a retrospective study over three years at a department for cardiovascular Surgery in Vienna]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018;131–132:38–45. German.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Kennerly DA, Kudyakov R, da Graca B, et al. Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(5):1407–25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
Sam AT, Lian Jessica LL, Parasuraman S. A retrospective study on the incidences of adverse drug events and analysis of the contributing trigger factors. J Basic Clin Pharm. 2015;6(2):64–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Leveno KJ. Williams Manual of Pregnancy Complications. 23 ed. Science Press; 2018.
68.
Mevik K, Griffin FA, Hansen TE, Deilkås E, Vonen B. Is inter-rater reliability of global trigger Tool results altered when members of the review team are replaced? Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(4):492–6.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Boxun C, Yansheng Z, Yongheng L, et al. Design and application of active monitoring system for medical adverse events based on trigger mechanism[J]. China Digital Medicine. 2021;16(11).
70.
Goel A, Maski MR, Bajracharya S, et al. Epidemiology and mechanisms of De Novo and Persistent Hypertension in the PostpartumPeriod. Circulation. 2015;132:1726.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
71.
Black MH, Zhou H, Sacks DA, et al. Hypertensive disorders first identified in pregnancy increase risk for incident prehypertensionand Hypertension in the year after delivery. J Hypertens. 2016;34:728.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Linde LE, Ebbing C, Moster D, et al. Recurrence of postpartum Hemorrhage in relatives: a population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:2278.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Sheiner E, Sarid L, Levy A, et al. Obstetric risk factors and outcome of pregnancies complicated with early postpartum Hemorrhage:a population-based study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;18:149.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Clarke VT, Smiley RM, Finster M. Uterine hyperactivity after intrathecal injection of fentanyl for analgesia during labor: a causeof fetal bradycardia? Anesthesiology. 1994;81:1083.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Widmer M, Blum J, Hofmeyr GJ, et al. Misoprostol as an adjunct to standard uterotonics for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage: amulticentre, double-blind randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1808.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Changizi N, Rezaeizadeh G, Janani L, Shariat M, Habibelahi A. In depth analysis of the Leading Causes of Maternal Mortality due to Cesarean Section in Iran. J Family Reprod Health. 2017;11(1):1–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
77.
Kajendran J, Silva GR, Ranaraja SK. Effects of 5 IU oxytocin bolus and 20 IU oxytocin infusion compared to 5 IU oxytocin bolus and normal saline infusion in the control of blood loss during and after ante-partum lower segment caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Ceylon Med J. 2017;62(3):121–7.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Council of Europe. Creation of a better medication safety culture in Europe: building up safe medication practices. Council of Europe; 2006.
Metadata
Title
Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China
Authors
Shan Wu
Qinan Yin
Liuyun Wu
Yue Wu
Nan Yu
Junfeng Yan
Yuan Bian
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10449-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Health Services Research 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Factors associated with work ability among employees of an Italian university hospital

Research

Project ECHO®: a global cross-sectional examination of implementation success

Research

Acceptance of assisted partner notification among HIV-positive adults with severe mental illness at a national referral hospital in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

Research

Needs assessment in long-term care: expression of national principles for priority setting in service allocation

Research

Diabetic kidney disease screening status and related factors: a cross-sectional study of patients with type 2 diabetes in six provinces in China

Research

Co-creating a continuous leadership development program in rural municipal healthcare – an action research study