Adverse Events in Korean Traditional Medicine Hospitals: A Retrospective Medical Record Review

Hwang, Jee‐In; Kim, Jin-Sung; Park, Jae-Woo

doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000190

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The more triggers we found in a patient record, the greater the risk that the patient would have experienced an AE. This is in accordance with research in somatic care 3,50 . As far as we know this has not previously been discussed in relation to psychiatric care.…”

Section: Statement Of the Principal Findingssupporting

confidence: 91%

Mitigating risk in Norwegian psychiatric care: Identifying triggers of adverse events through Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric care

Okkenhaug

Tritter

Myklebust³

et al. 2019

JRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Patients treated in psychiatric care are exposed to the risk of adverse events, similar to patients treated in somatic health care. OBJECTIVES:In this article we report the findings of triggers associated with adverse events (AEs) identified by a version of GTT-P (Global Trigger Tool -Psychiatry) adapted for Norwegian hospital-based psychiatric treatment. METHODS:The design was a retrospective analysis of a random sample of 240 patient records from a psychiatric clinic in one Norwegian hospital. Patient records were sampled from both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric clinics in hospitals serving the northern part of the county of Trøndelag, Norway. RESULTS:Our analysis was based on the identification of 32 potential triggers of adverse events. Eighteen of the triggers were significantly related to adverse events.No adverse events were identified in patient records that did not also contain triggers included in the Global Trigger Tool. CONCLUSIONS:There is a clear relationship between the presence of triggers in a patient record and the likelihood of adverse events. Particularly relevant for psychiatric patients is 'suffering' as a trigger and this may also be relevant to somatic care and has implications for inclusion in the GTT-P.

show abstract

Section: Statement Of the Principal Findingssupporting

confidence: 91%

Mitigating risk in Norwegian psychiatric care: Identifying triggers of adverse events through Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric care

Okkenhaug

Tritter

Myklebust³

et al. 2019

JRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 30 Studies use different definitions for triggers and AEs, different methods, and classifications. The GTT studies are characterized by a great methodological heterogeneity because before implementation, the GTT is typically adapted to the local context 2 , 31 by removing modules, 32 – 34 adding triggers and specific definitions, 35 or adding new modules. 36 In addition, the participating departments have different medical specializations with different disease related groups of patients and clinical presentations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the Global Trigger Tool in German Hospitals: A Pilot in Surgery and Neurosurgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The 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. Methods A 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. Results Thirty-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. Conclusions The 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.

show abstract

“…The Korean patient safety reporting and learning system, which was introduced by the Patient Safety Act, could be used to estimate the scale of patient safety incidents, but it has limitations for assessing the overall patient safety level due to under-reporting [ 19 ]. Although a few studies have estimated the incidence of adverse events in hospitals using medical-record reviews [ 14 , 20 , 21 ], the generalizability of these studies is limited. Considering the difficulty of conducting medical-record reviews on a large scale, using administrative data is an affordable alternative for estimating the scale of adverse events on the national level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Adverse Events Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Y Codes in Korea: A Cross-sectional Study

Ock

Kim

Jeon

et al. 2018

J Prev Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe use of administrative data is an affordable alternative to conducting a difficult large-scale medical-record review to estimate the scale of adverse events. We identified adverse events from 2002 to 2013 on the national level in Korea, using International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) Y codes.MethodsWe used data from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort (NHIS-NSC). We relied on medical treatment databases to extract information on ICD-10 Y codes from each participant in the NHIS-NSC. We classified adverse events in the ICD-10 Y codes into 6 types: those related to drugs, transfusions, and fluids; those related to vaccines and immunoglobulin; those related to surgery and procedures; those related to infections; those related to devices; and others.ResultsOver 12 years, a total of 20 817 adverse events were identified using ICD-10 Y codes, and the estimated total adverse event rate was 0.20%. Between 2002 and 2013, the total number of such events increased by 131.3%, from 1366 in 2002 to 3159 in 2013. The total rate increased by 103.9%, from 0.17% in 2002 to 0.35% in 2013. Events related to drugs, transfusions, and fluids were the most common (19 446, 93.4%), followed by those related to surgery and procedures (1209, 5.8%) and those related to vaccines and immunoglobulin (72, 0.3%).ConclusionsBased on a comparison with the results of other studies, the total adverse event rate in this study was significantly underestimated. Improving coding practices for ICD-10 Y codes is necessary to precisely monitor the scale of adverse events in Korea.

show abstract

Adverse Events in Korean Traditional Medicine Hospitals: A Retrospective Medical Record Review

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Mitigating risk in Norwegian psychiatric care: Identifying triggers of adverse events through Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric care

Mitigating risk in Norwegian psychiatric care: Identifying triggers of adverse events through Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric care

Applying the Global Trigger Tool in German Hospitals: A Pilot in Surgery and Neurosurgery

Identifying Adverse Events Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Y Codes in Korea: A Cross-sectional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About