ArticleJournal of patient safety2020
Applying the Global Trigger Tool in German Hospitals: A Pilot in Surgery and Neurosurgery.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record review: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Pooled 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
- Assessing Inter-Rater Agreement Across Five Teams Applying the Global Trigger Tool to Review 200 Inpatient Medical Records.Journal of patient safety · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a German Paediatric Trigger Tool (PAED-TT-GER) for detecting adverse events in hospitalized children.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Active surveillance of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension based on the global trigger tool.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Using the Global Trigger Tool in surgical and neurosurgical patients: A feasibility study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and content validation of the Global Trigger Tool surgical module.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 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
- [Teaching patient safety during undergraduate medical studies].Der Internist · 2020Review
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Measurement Properties of the Portuguese Version of the Global Trigger Tool for Adverse Events.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and potential of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for identifying adverse events (AEs) in different specialties in German hospitals.
methodsA total of 120 patient records were randomly selected from two surgical and one neurosurgery departments of three university hospitals in Germany for a period of 2 months per department between January and July 2017. The records were reviewed using an adaptation of the German version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement GTT.
resultsThirty-nine records (32.5%) contained at least one AE. A total of 53 AEs were found in these 39 records. The incidences of AEs were 18.9% and 35.9% in the two surgical departments and 45.3% in neurosurgery. This corresponded to AE rates of 25.5 to 72.1 per 1000 patient-days and from 25.0 to 60.0 per 100 admissions across the three departments. A total of 71.7% of all identified AEs resulted in temporary harm (category E), 26.4% in temporary harm, requiring prolonged hospitalization (category F), and 1.9% in permanent patient harm. We also identified practical challenges, such as the necessary adaptation of the GTT relative to the respective department.
conclusionsThe application of the GTT is feasible and represents an effective instrument for quality measurement when adapted to the departmental specifics. The trigger detection with the GTT is a valuable addition for proactive analyses of high-risk processes.
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.