TY - JOUR
T1 - The Emergency Department Trigger Tool
T2 - A Novel Approach to Screening for Quality and Safety Events
AU - Griffey, Richard T.
AU - Schneider, Ryan M.
AU - Todorov, Alexandre A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This work was supported by grant R18 HS025052-01 (Dr. Griffey) from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Griffey is also supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH)/NIDDK grant P30DK092950 through the Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research Pilot and Feasibility Program, and grant 3767 from the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American College of Emergency Physicians
PY - 2020/8
Y1 - 2020/8
N2 - Study objective: Trigger tools improve surveillance for harm by focusing reviews on records with “triggers” whose presence increases the likelihood of an adverse event. We refine and automate a previously developed emergency department (ED) trigger tool and present record selection strategies to further optimize yield. Methods: We specified 97 triggers for extraction from our electronic medical record, identifying 76,894 ED visits with greater than or equal to 1 trigger. We reviewed 1,726 records with greater than or equal to 1 trigger, following a standard trigger tool review process. We validated query performance against manual review and evaluated individual triggers, retaining only those associated with adverse events in the ED. We explored 2 approaches to enhance record selection: on number of triggers present and using trigger weights derived with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression. Results: The automated query performed well compared with manual review (sensitivity >70% for 80 triggers; specificity >92% for all). Review yielded 374 adverse events (21.6 adverse events per 100 records). Thirty triggers were associated with risk of harm in the ED. An estimated 10.3% of records with greater than 1 of these triggers would include an adverse event in the ED. Selecting only records with greater than or equal to 4 or greater than or equal to 9 triggers improves yield to 17% and 34.8%, respectively, whereas use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator trigger weighting enhances the yield to as high as 52%. Conclusion: The ED trigger tool is a promising approach to improve yield, scope, and efficiency of review for all-cause harm in emergency medicine. Beginning with a broad set of candidate triggers, we validated a computerized query that eliminates the need for manual screening for triggers and identified a refined set of triggers associated with adverse events in the ED. Review efficiency can be further enhanced with enhanced record selection.
AB - Study objective: Trigger tools improve surveillance for harm by focusing reviews on records with “triggers” whose presence increases the likelihood of an adverse event. We refine and automate a previously developed emergency department (ED) trigger tool and present record selection strategies to further optimize yield. Methods: We specified 97 triggers for extraction from our electronic medical record, identifying 76,894 ED visits with greater than or equal to 1 trigger. We reviewed 1,726 records with greater than or equal to 1 trigger, following a standard trigger tool review process. We validated query performance against manual review and evaluated individual triggers, retaining only those associated with adverse events in the ED. We explored 2 approaches to enhance record selection: on number of triggers present and using trigger weights derived with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression. Results: The automated query performed well compared with manual review (sensitivity >70% for 80 triggers; specificity >92% for all). Review yielded 374 adverse events (21.6 adverse events per 100 records). Thirty triggers were associated with risk of harm in the ED. An estimated 10.3% of records with greater than 1 of these triggers would include an adverse event in the ED. Selecting only records with greater than or equal to 4 or greater than or equal to 9 triggers improves yield to 17% and 34.8%, respectively, whereas use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator trigger weighting enhances the yield to as high as 52%. Conclusion: The ED trigger tool is a promising approach to improve yield, scope, and efficiency of review for all-cause harm in emergency medicine. Beginning with a broad set of candidate triggers, we validated a computerized query that eliminates the need for manual screening for triggers and identified a refined set of triggers associated with adverse events in the ED. Review efficiency can be further enhanced with enhanced record selection.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073545198&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.07.032
DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.07.032
M3 - Article
C2 - 31623935
AN - SCOPUS:85073545198
SN - 0196-0644
VL - 76
SP - 230
EP - 240
JO - Annals of emergency medicine
JF - Annals of emergency medicine
IS - 2
ER -