ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2021
Development and Implementation of an e-Trigger Tool for Adverse Drug Events in a Swiss University Hospital.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Triggers for identifying anticoagulation-associated adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence of Naloxone-Use Before and After Implementing Opioid Safety Measures for Patients Hospitalised on General Wards in a Swiss University Hospital.Drug safety · 2026Observational
- Trends and Outcomes of Naloxone Use for Iatrogenic Opioid Overdose in Patients on General Wards in a Swiss Hospital: A Ten-Year Retrospective Case Series Analysis.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2026Article
- Evaluating EHR-Integrated Digital Technologies for Medication-Related Outcomes and Health Equity in Hospitalised Adults: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Development of Automated Triggers in Ambulatory Settings in Brazil: Protocol for a Machine Learning-Based Design Thinking Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- Active monitoring of antifungal adverse events in hospitalized patients based on Global Trigger Tool method.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Global trigger tool as a medication safety tool for adverse drug event detection-a cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- Magnitude and Characteristics of Adverse Drug Events in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of the study was to develop and implement an institution-specific trigger tool based on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement medication module trigger tool (IHI MMTT) in order to detect and monitor ADEs.
methodsWe performed an investigator-driven, single-center study using retrospective and prospective patient data to develop ("development phase") and implement ("implementation phase") an efficient, institution-specific trigger tool based on the IHI MMTT. Complete medical data from 1008 patients hospitalized in 2018 were used in the development phase. ADEs were identified by chart review. The performance of two versions of the tool was assessed by comparing their sensitivities and specificities. Tool A employed only digitally extracted triggers ("e-trigger-tool") while Tool B employed an additional manually extracted trigger. The superior tool - taking efficiency into account - was applied prospectively to 19-22 randomly chosen charts per month for 26 months during the implementation phase.
resultsIn the development phase, 189 (19%) patients had ≥1 ADE (total 277 ADEs). The time needed to identify these ADEs was 15 minutes/chart. A total of 203 patients had ≥1 trigger (total 273 triggers - Tool B). The sensitivities and specificities of Tools A and B were 0.41 and 0.86, and 0.43 and 0.86, respectively. Tool A was more time-efficient than Tool B (4 vs 9 minutes/chart) and was therefore used in the implementation phase. During the 26-month implementation phase, 22 patients experienced trigger-identified ADEs and 529 did not. The median number of ADEs per 1000 patient days was 6 (range 0-13). Patients with at least one ADE had a mean hospital stay of 22.3 ± 19.7 days, compared to 8.0 ± 7.6 days for those without an ADE (p = 2.7×10
conclusionWe developed and implemented an e-trigger tool that was specific and moderately sensitive, gave consistent results and required minimal resources.
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.