ArticleHealth science reports2020
Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.
Article in Health science reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023Pooled it
- Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Identifying hazards for psychological harm in cancer care using incident reports: searching for the invisible.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Invisible harm in patient safety: a framework and definition for preventable psychological harm in cancer care.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Assessment of the occurrence of adverse events through the global trigger tool in a university hospital in Italy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The application of Global Trigger Tool in monitoring antineoplastic adverse drug events: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- [Update of triggers for detection of adverse drug events in hematologic patients].Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- Occurrence of No-Harm Incidents and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients with Ischemic Stroke or TIA: A Cohort Study Using Trigger Tool Methodology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- 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.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.Health science reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe occurrence rate of adverse events (AEs) related to care among hospitalized oncology patients in Switzerland remains unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe, for the first time, the occurrence rate, type, severity of harm, and preventability of AEs related to care, reported in health records of hospitalized hematological and solid-tumor cancer patients in three Swiss hospitals.
methodsUsing an adapted version of the validated Global Trigger Tool (GTT) from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, we conducted a retrospective record review of patients discharged from oncology units over a 6-week period during 2018. Our convenience sample included all records from adult patients (≥18 years of age), diagnosed with cancer, and hospitalized (>24 hours). Per the GTT method, two trained nurses independently assessed patient records to identify AEs using triggers, and physicians from the included units analyzed the consensus of the two nurses. Together, they assessed the severity and preventability of each AE.
resultsFrom the sample of 224 reviewed records, we identified 661 triggers and 169 AEs in 94 of them (42%). Pain related to care was the most frequent AE (n = 29), followed by constipation (n = 17). AEs rates were 75.4 per 100 admissions and 106.6 per 1000 patient days. Most of the identified AEs (78%) caused temporary harm to the patient and required an intervention. Among AEs during hospitalization (n = 125), 76 (61%) were considered not preventable, 28 (22%) preventable, and 21 (17%) undetermined.
conclusionAbout half of the hospitalized oncology patients suffered from at least one AE related to care during their hospitalization. Pain, constipation, and nosocomial infections were the most frequent AEs. It is, therefore, essential to identify AEs to guide future clinical practice initiatives to ensure patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.