• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of pharmacy practice >Testing a trigger tool as a method of detecting harm from medication errors in a UK hospital: a pilot study.
【24h】

Testing a trigger tool as a method of detecting harm from medication errors in a UK hospital: a pilot study.

机译：在英国一家医院中测试触发工具作为检测药物错误伤害的方法：一项试点研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to adapt a US adverse drug event (ADE) trigger tool for UK use, and to establish its positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity in comparison to retrospective health record review for the identification of preventable ADEs, in a pilot study on one hospital ward. METHODS: An established US trigger tool was adapted for UK use. We applied it retrospectively to 207 patients' health records, following up positive triggers to identify any ADEs (both preventable and non-preventable). We compared the preventable ADEs to those identified using full health record review. KEY FINDINGS: We identified 168 positive triggers in 127 (61%) of 207 patients. Seven ADEs were identified, representing an ADE in 3.4% of patients or 0.7 ADEs per 100 patient days. Five were non-preventable adverse drug reactions and two were due to preventable errors. The prevalence of preventable ADEs was 1.0% of patients, or 0.2 per 100 patient days. The overall PPV was 0.04 for all ADEs, and 0.01 for preventable ADEs. PPVs for individual triggers varied widely. Five preventable ADEs were identified using health record review. The sensitivity of the trigger tool for identifying preventable ADEs was 0.40, when compared to health record review. CONCLUSIONS: Although we identified some ADEs using the trigger tool, more work is needed to further refine the trigger tool to reduce the false positives and increase sensitivity. To comprehensively identify preventable ADEs, retrospective health record review remains the gold standard and we found no efficiency gain in using the trigger tool.
机译：目标：旨在对美国使用不良药物事件（ADE）触发工具进行调整，并与一项回顾性健康记录审查以鉴定可预防的ADE相比，确定其阳性预测值（PPV）和敏感性。在一个医院病房里学习。方法：已建立的美国触发工具适用于英国。我们回顾性地将其应用到207位患者的健康记录中，跟踪积极的发现因素以识别任何ADE（可预防和不可预防）。我们将可预防的ADE与使用完整的健康记录审阅确定的ADE进行了比较。主要发现：我们在207例患者中的127例（61％）中确定了168个阳性触发因素。鉴定出七个ADE，占患者的3.4％ADE或每100个患者日0.7 ADE。五个是无法预防的不良药物反应，两个是由于可预防的错误。可预防的ADEs的患病率为1.0％，即每100个病人天0.2个。所有ADE的总PPV为0.04，可预防ADE的总PPV为0.01。单个触发器的PPV差异很大。使用健康记录审查确定了五个可预防的ADE。与健康记录审查相比，触发工具识别可预防的ADEs的敏感性为0.40。结论：尽管我们使用触发工具确定了一些ADE，但仍需要做更多工作来进一步完善触发工具，以减少误报并提高灵敏度。为了全面识别可预防的ADE，回顾性健康记录审查仍然是金标准，我们发现使用触发工具没有效率提高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号