Multicenter Test of an Emergency Department Trigger Tool for Detecting Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: Traditional approaches to safety and quality screening in the emergency department (ED) are porous and low yield for identifying adverse events (AEs). A better approach may be in the use of trigger tool methodology. We recently developed a novel ED trigger tool using a multidisciplinary, multicenter approach. We conducted a multicenter test of this tool and assess its performance. METHODS: In design and participants, we studied the ED trigger tool for a 13-month period at four EDs. All patients 18 years and older with Emergency Severity Index acuity levels of 1 to 3 seen by a provider were eligible. Reviewers completed standardized training modules. Each site reviewed 50 randomly selected visits per month. A first-level reviewer screened for presence of predefined triggers (findings that increase the probability of an AE). If no trigger is present, the review is deemed complete. When present, a trigger prompts an in-depth review for an AE. Any event identified is assigned a level of harm using the Medication Event Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index, ranging from a near miss (A) to patient death (I). Events are noted as present on arrival or in the ED, an act of commission or omission, and are assigned one of four event categories. A second-level physician performs a confirmatory review of all AEs and independently reviews 10% of cases to estimate the false-negative rate. All AEs or potential AEs were reviewed in monthly group calls for consensus on findings. The primary outcome is the proportion of visits in which an AE is identified, overall and by site. Secondary outcomes include categories of events, distribution of harm ratings, and association of AEs with sociodemographic and clinical factors and triggers. We present sociodemographic data and details about AEs and results of logistic regression for associations of AEs with of triggers, sociodemographics, and clinical variables. RESULTS: We captured 2594 visits that are representative, within site, of their patient population. Overall, the sample is 64% white, 54% female, and with a mean age of 51. Variability is observed between sites for age, race, and insurance, but not sex. A total of 240 events were identified in 228 visits (8.8%) of which 53.3% were present on arrival, 19.7% were acts of omission, and 44.6% were medication-related, with some variability across sites. A MERP F score (contributing to need for admission, higher level of care, or prolonged hospitalization) was the most common severity level (35.4% of events). Overall, 185 (77.1%) of 240 events involved patient harm (MERP level ≥ E), affecting 175 visits (6.7%). Triggers were present in 951 visits (36.6%). Presence of any trigger was strongly associated with an AE (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval = 3.2-6.6). Ten triggers were individually associated with AEs (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1-7.7). Variability was observed across sites in individual trigger associations, event rates, and categories, but not in severity ratings of events. The overall false-negative rate was 6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The trigger tool approach was successful in identifying meaningful events. The ED trigger tool seems to be a promising approach for identifying all-cause harm in the ED.

Description and Yield of Current Quality and Safety Review in Selected US Academic Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: Quality and safety review for performance improvement is important for systems of care and is required for US academic emergency departments (EDs). Assessment of the impact of patient safety initiatives in the context of increasing burdens of quality measurement compels standardized, meaningful, high-yield approaches for performance review. Limited data describe how quality and safety reviews are currently conducted and how well they perform in detecting patient harm and areas for improvement. We hypothesized that decades-old approaches used in many academic EDs are inefficient and low yield for identifying patient harm. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the efficiency and yield of current quality review processes at five academic EDs for a 12-month period. Sites provided descriptions of their current practice and collected summary data on the number and severity of events identified in their reviews and the referral sources that led to their capture. Categories of common referral sources were established at the beginning of the study. Sites used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's definition in defining an adverse event and a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index for grading severity of events. RESULTS: Participating sites had similar processes for quality review, including a two-level review process, monthly reviews and conferences, similar screening criteria, and a grading system for evaluating cases. In 60 months of data collection, we reviewed a total of 4735 cases and identified 381 events. This included 287 near-misses, errors/events (MERP A-I) and 94 adverse events (AEs) (MERP E-I). The overall AE rate (event rate with harm) was 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 1.62%-2.43%), ranging from 1.24% to 3.47% across sites. The overall rate of quality concerns (events without harm) was 6.06% (5.42%-6.78%), ranging from 2.96% to 10.95% across sites. Seventy-two-hour returns were the most frequent referral source used, accounting for 47% of the cases reviewed but with a yield of only 0.81% in identifying harm. Other referral sources similarly had very low yields. External referrals were the highest yield referral source, with 14.34% (10.64%-19.03%) identifying AEs. As a percentage of the 94 AEs identified, external referrals also accounted for 41.49% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: With an overall adverse event rate of 1.99%, commonly used referral sources seem to be low yield and inefficient for detecting patient harm. Approximately 6% of the cases identified by these criteria yielded a near miss or quality concern. New approaches to quality and safety review in the ED are needed to optimize their yield and efficiency for identifying harm and areas for improvement.

Development of an Emergency Department Trigger Tool Using a Systematic Search and Modified Delphi Process.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an emergency department (ED) trigger tool to improve the identification of adverse events in the ED and that can be used to direct patient safety and quality improvement. This work describes the first step toward the development of an ED all-cause harm measurement tool by experts in the field. METHODS: We identified a multidisciplinary group of emergency medicine safety experts from whom we solicited candidate triggers. We then conducted a modified Delphi process consisting of 4 stages as follows: (1) a systematic literature search and review, including an independent oversampling of review for inclusion, (2) solicitation of empiric triggers from participants, (3) a Web-based survey ranking triggers on specific performance constructs, and (4) a final in-person meeting to arrive at consensus triggers for testing. Results of each step were shared with participants between each stage. RESULTS: Among an initial 804 unique articles found using our search criteria, we identified 94 that were suitable for further review. Interrater reliability was high (κ = 0.80). Review of these articles yielded 56 candidate triggers. These were supplemented by 58 participant-submitted triggers yielding a total of 114 candidate triggers that were shared with team members electronically along with their definitions. Team members then voted on each measure via a Web-based survey, ranking triggers on their face validity, utility for quality improvement, and fidelity (sensitivity/specificity). Participants were also provided the ability to flag any trigger about which they had questions or they felt merited further discussion at the in-person meeting. Triggers were ranked by combining the first 2 categories (face validity and utility), and information on fidelity was reviewed for decision making at the in-person meeting. Seven redundant triggers were eliminated. At an in-person meeting including representatives from all facilities, we presented the 50 top-ranked triggers as well as those that were flagged on the survey by 2 or more participants. We reviewed each trigger individually, identifying 41 triggers about which there was a clear agreement for inclusion. Of the seven additional triggers that required subsequent voting via e-mail, 5 were adopted, arriving at a total of 46 consensus-derived triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified Delphi process resulted in the identification of 46 final triggers for the detection of adverse events among ED patients. These triggers should be pilot field tested to quantify their individual and collective performance in detecting all-cause harm to ED patients.

Critical Review, Development, and Testing of a Taxonomy for Adverse Events and Near Misses in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: An adverse event (AE) is a physical harm experienced by a patient due to health care, requiring intervention. Describing and categorizing AEs is important for quality and safety assessment and identifying areas for improvement. Safety science suggests that improvement efforts should focus on preventing and mitigating harm rather than on error, which is commonplace but infrequently leads to AEs. Most taxonomies fail to describe harm experienced by patients (e.g., hypoxia, hemorrhage, anaphylaxis), focusing instead on errors, and use categorizations that are too broad to be useful (e.g., "communication error"). We set out to create a patient-centered, emergency department (ED)-specific framework for describing AEs and near misses to advance quality and safety in the acute care setting. METHODS: We performed a critical review of existing taxonomies of harm, evaluating their applicability to the ED. We identified and adopted a classification framework and developed a taxonomy using an iterative process categorizing approximately 600 previously identified AEs and near misses. We reviewed this taxonomy with collaborators at four medical centers, receiving feedback and providing clarification. We then disseminated a set of representative scenarios for these safety experts to categorize independently using the taxonomy. We calculated interrater reliability and performance compared to our criterion standard. RESULTS: Our search identified candidate taxonomies for detailed review. We selected the Adventist Health Systems AE taxonomy and modified this for use in the ED, adopting a framework of categories, subcategories, and up to three modifiers to further describe events. On testing, overall reviewer agreement with the criterion standard was 92% at the category level and 88% at the subcategory level. Three of the four raters concurred in 55 of 59 scenarios (93%) and all four concurred in 46 of 59 scenarios (78%). At the subcategory level, there was complete agreement in 40 of 59 (68%) scenarios and majority agreement in 55 of 59 instances (93%). Performance of individual raters ranged from very good (88%, 52/59) to near perfect (98%, 58/59) at the main category level. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a taxonomy of AEs and near misses for the ED, modified from an existing framework. Testing of the tool with minimal training yielded high performance and good inter-rater reliability. This taxonomy can be adapted and modified by EDs seeking to enhance their quality and safety reviews and characterize harm occurring in their EDs for quality improvement purposes.

By Default: The Effect of Prepopulated Prescription Quantities on Opioid Prescribing in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing patterns have come under increasing scrutiny with the recent rise in opioid prescriptions, opioid misuse and abuse, and opioid-related adverse events. To date, there have been limited studies on the effect of default tablet quantities as part of emergency department (ED) electronic order entry. Our goal was to evaluate opioid prescribing patterns before and after the removal of a default quantity of 20 tablets from ED electronic order entry. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study at a single academic, urban ED with 58,000 annual visits. We identified all adult patients (18 years or older) seen in the ED and discharged home with prescriptions for tablet forms of hydrocodone and oxycodone (including mixed formulations with acetaminophen). We compared the quantity of tablets prescribed per opioid prescription 12 months before and 10 months after the electronic order-entry prescription default quantity of 20 tablets was removed and replaced with no default quantity. No specific messaging was given to providers, to avoid influencing prescribing patterns. We used two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-sample test of proportions, and Pearson's chi-squared tests where appropriate for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4,104 adult patients received discharge prescriptions for opioids in the pre-intervention period (151.6 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients), and 2,464 post-intervention (106.69 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients). The median quantity of opioid tablets prescribed decreased from 20 (interquartile ration [IQR] 10-20) to 15 (IQR 10-20) (p<0.0001) after removal of the default quantity. While the most frequent quantity of tablets received in both groups was 20 tablets, the proportion of patients who received prescriptions on discharge that contained 20 tablets decreased from 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.48-0.52]) to 0.23 (95% CI [0.21-0.24]) (p<0.001) after default quantity removal. CONCLUSION: Although the median number of tablets differed significantly before and after the intervention, the clinical significance of this is unclear. An observed wider distribution of the quantity of tablets prescribed after removal of the default quantity of 20 may reflect more appropriate prescribing patterns (i.e., less severe indications receiving fewer tabs and more severe indications receiving more). A default value of 20 tablets for opioid prescriptions may be an example of the electronic medical record's ability to reduce practice variability in medication orders actually counteracting optimal patient care.

Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: Factors Associated with ED Revisits.

INTRODUCTION: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is a condition that commonly affects women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite frequently leading to emergency department (ED) visits, little evidence exists to characterize the nature of ED visits or to guide its treatment in the ED. Our objectives were to evaluate the treatment of NVP in the ED and to identify factors that predict return visits to the ED for NVP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database analysis using the electronic medical record from a single, large academic hospital. Demographic and treatment variables were collected using a chart review of 113 ED patient visits with a billing diagnosis of "nausea and vomiting in pregnancy" or "hyperemesis gravidarum." Logistic regression analysis was used with a primary outcome of return visit to the ED for the same diagnoses. RESULTS: There was wide treatment variability of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy patients in the ED. Of the 113 patient visits, 38 (33.6%) had a return ED visit for NVP. High gravidity (OR 1.31, 95% CI [1.06-1.61]), high parity (OR 1.50 95% CI [1.12-2.00]), and early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.60-0.90]) were associated with an increase in return ED visits in univariate logistic regression models, while only early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.59-0.91]) was associated with increased return ED visits in a multiple regression model. Admission to the hospital was found to decrease the likelihood of return ED visits (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: NVP can be difficult to manage and has a high ED return visit rate. Optimizing care with aggressive, standardized treatment in the ED and upon discharge, particularly if factors predictive of return ED visits are present, may improve quality of care and reduce ED utilization for this condition.