Evaluating iatrogenic prescribing: Development of an oncology-focused trigger tool

Hébert, Guillaume; Netzer, Florence; Ferrua, Marie; Ducreux, Michel; Lemare, François; Minvielle, Étienne

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.002

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The age of patients is a main risk factor for AEs [7,21]. Our results indicate that for every year increase in age, the risk of an AE increases by 1.3%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients with cancer are often treated by many healthcare providers, receive complex and potentially toxic treatments that can increase the risk for iatrogenic harm. The aim of this study is to investigate whether hospitalised cancer patients are at higher risk of adverse events (AEs) compared to a general hospital population. Material and methods: A total of 6720 patient records were retrospectively reviewed comparing AEs in hospitalised cancer patients to a general hospital population in Norway, using the IHI Global Trigger Tool method. Results: 24.2 percent of admissions for cancer patients had an AE compared to 17.4% of admissions of other patients (p < .001, rr 1.39, 95% CI 1.19-1.62). However, cancer patients did not have a higher rate of AEs per 1000 patient days compared to other patients, 37.1 vs. 36.0 (p ¼ .65, rr 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-1.18). No particular cancer category is at higher risk. The rate of AEs increases by 1.05 times for each day spent in hospital. For every year increase in age, the risk for AEs increases by 1.3%. Cancer patients more often have hospital-acquired infections, other surgical complications and AEs related to medications. Conclusions: Because of higher age, longer length of stay and surgical treatment, hospitalised cancer patients experience AEs more often than other patients.

show abstract

“…The age of patients is a main risk factor for AEs [7,21]. Our results indicate that for every year increase in age, the risk of an AE increases by 1.3%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twenty‐three studies on common causes of DRA in older people and 12 trigger tools studies were reviewed . Based on the information from the literature and their own clinical expertise, the research team compiled a preliminary list of 29 triggers and two screening questions for non‐triggered events related to ADR, overuse, underuse or misuse of medications.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a standardized chart review method to identify drug‐related hospital admissions in older people

Thevelin

Spinewine

Beuscart

et al. 2018

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have shown that the GTT was found at least ten times more certain events than traditional methods, and the monitoring results were closer to the actual incidence of AEs . Therefore, the GTT has been widely used and improved throughout the world, such as France, Korea, Turkish, Thailand, Brazil, and the United States . Triggers were also be customised for use in perinatal inpatient, pediatric inpatient, outpatient or ambulatory care setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Adverse events identified by the global trigger tool at a university hospital: A retrospective medical record review

Zhan

et al. 2018

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to describe the level, preventability and categories of adverse events (AEs) in Chinese geriatric patients identified by medical record review using the Global Trigger Tool. The applicability of the GTT was also assessed to explore possible modifications for trigger tools. Methods:The study was conducted at a 4300-bed tertiary teaching hospital. Twenty randomlyselected medical records for patients over 60 were reviewed every 2 weeks from January 1 2015 to December 31st, 2015. We studied 480 medical records in total. Two trained specialists reviewed the presence of AEs using 43 triggers, and a physician reviewed and validated the findings. The outcome measures included the number of AEs per 1000 patient days, AEs per 100 admissions, the percentage of entries with at least 1 AE and AE categorisation. Also, we carried out a descriptive analysis of the suspected factors of AEs, such as age, gender, length of stay, surgery.

show abstract

Evaluating iatrogenic prescribing: Development of an oncology-focused trigger tool

Cited by 17 publications

References 38 publications

Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

Development of a standardized chart review method to identify drug‐related hospital admissions in older people

Adverse events identified by the global trigger tool at a university hospital: A retrospective medical record review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About