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.

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.