Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  29 (2025)
Volume  28 (2024)
Volume  27 (2023)
Volume  26 (2022)
Volume  25 (2021)
Volume  24 (2020)
Volume  23 (2019)
Volume  22 (2018)
Volume  21 (2017)
Volume  20 (2016)
Volume  19 (2015)
Volume  18 (2014)
Volume  17 (2013)
Volume  16 (2012)
Volume  15 (2011)
Volume  14 (2010)
Volume  13 (2009)
Volume  12 (2008)
Volume  11 (2007)
Volume  10 (2006)
Volume  9 (2005)
Volume  8 (2004)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2020 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units

Amee D Pandya, Kalan Patel, Devang Rana, Sapna D Gupta, Supriya D Malhotra, Pankaj Patel

Keywords : Adverse drug reactions, Emergency department, Pharmacovigilance, Trigger tool

Citation Information : Pandya AD, Patel K, Rana D, Gupta SD, Malhotra SD, Patel P. Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020; 24 (3):172-178.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-08-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Emergency department (ED) being the most crucial part of hospital, where adverse drug reactions (ADRs) often go undetected. Trigger tools are proficient ADR detection methods, which have only been applied for retrospective surveillance. We did a prospective analysis to further refine the trigger tool application in healthcare settings. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of ADRs and prospectively evaluate the importance of using trigger tools for their detection. Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted in the ED for the presence of triggers in patient records to monitor and report ADRs by applying the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) trigger tool methodology. Results: Four hundred sixty-three medical records were analyzed randomly using 51 trigger tools, where triggers were found in 181 (39.09%) and ADRs in 62 (13.39%) patients. The prevalence of ADR was 13.39%. According to the World Health Organization (WHO)-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) causality scale, 47 (75.8%) were classified as probable and 15 (24.2%) as possible, wherein 39 (62.9%) were predictable and 8 (12.9%) were definitely preventable. Most common triggers were abrupt medication stoppage (34.98%), antiemetic use (25.91%), and time in ED >6 hours (17.49%). The positive predictive values (PPVs) of triggers such as international normalized ratio (INR) > 4 (p = 0.0384), vitamin K administration (p = 0.002), steroid use (p = 0.0001), abrupt medication stoppage (p = 0.0077), transfusion of blood or blood products (p = 0.004), and rash (p = 0.0042) showed statistically significant results, which make the event detection process more structured when these triggers are positive. Presence of five or more triggers has statistically significant chances of developing an ADR (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Trigger tool could be a viable method to identify ADRs when compared to the traditional ADR identification methods, but there is insufficient data on IHI tool and its use to identify ADRs in the general outpatient setting. Healthcare providers may benefit from better trigger tools to help them detect ADRs.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Carnevali L, Krug B, Amant F, Van Pee D, Gérard V, de Béthune X, 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):1414–1419. DOI: 10.1177/1060028013500939.
  2. de Wet C, Bowie P. The preliminary development and testing of a global trigger tool to detect error and patient harm in primary-care records. Postgrad Med J 2009;85(1002):176–180. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2008.075788.
  3. Gómez IV, Jiménez CMJ, Daniel A, Piquero FJM. Global trigger tools for the detection of adverse drug events. Eur J Clin Pharm 2016;18(1):5.
  4. Sharek PJ. The emergence of the trigger tool as the premier measurement strategy for patient safety. AHRQ WebM&M 2012;2012(5):120.
  5. Pierdevara L, Margarida IV, Maria AB, Silva CS. An experience with the global trigger tool for the study of adverse events in a medical ward. NJR 2016;9(4):97–105. DOI: 10.12707/RIV15078.
  6. Brenner S, Detz A, López A, Horton C, Sarkar U. Signal and noise: applying a laboratory trigger tool to identify adverse drug events among primary care patients. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21(8):670–675. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000643.
  7. Griffin FA, Resar RK. IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. Cambrige: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009.
  8. Rawlins MD, Thompson JW. Pathogenesis of adverse drug reactions. In: Davies DM, ed. Textbook of adverse drug reactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1977. p. 10.
  9. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment. Accessed from: http://www.WHO-UMC.org/graphics/4409.pdf, last accessed on 2019 April 26.
  10. Hartwig SC, Siegel J, Schneider PJ. Preventability and severity assessment in reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49(9):2229–2232. DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/49.9.2229.
  11. Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions. Hosp Pharm 1992;27(6):538.
  12. Joshua L, Devi P, Guido S. Adverse drug reactions in medical intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009;18(7):639–645. DOI: 10.1002/pds.1761.
  13. Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002;24(2):46–54. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015570104121.
  14. Einarson TR. Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27(7–8):832–840. DOI: 10.1177/106002809302700702.
  15. Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42(7):1017–1025. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1L037.
  16. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205. DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.15.1200.
  17. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329(7456):15–19. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15.
  18. Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krähenbühl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature. Drug Saf 2007;30(5):379–407. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200730050-00003.
  19. 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. DOI: 10.1186/s40360-017-0177-y Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42(7):1017–1025. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1L037.
  20. Prince BS, Goetz CM, Rihn TL, Olsky M. Drug-related emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49(7):1696–1700. DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/49.7.1696.
  21. Riley RS, Rowe D, Fisher LM. Clinical utilization of the international normalized ratio (INR). J Clin Lab Anal 2000;14(3):101–114. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2825(2000)14:3<101::AID-JCLA4>3.0.CO;2-A.
  22. Hill MR, Szefler SJ, Ball BD, Bartoszek M, Brenner AM. Monitoring glucocorticoid therapy: a pharmacokinetic approach. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990;48(4):390–398. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1990.167.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.