Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 11, 2026
Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record
Luis Meave Gutierrez-Mendoza1, Elizabeth Manías2,3, Patricia Nicholson1
1School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Background:
Efforts to identify the prevalence rate of adverse events have been implemented in hospital settings using different methods. The trigger tool method constitutes one option and involves a retrospective review of paper-based, electronic, or hybrid medical records. The aim of the systematic review was to provide a comprehensive description of the predictive value of trigger tools used to identify adverse events in hospitalized patients.
Methods:
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published between 2000 and October 2024. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, published in English or Spanish, and reported a trigger tool methodology used to identify the prevalence of adverse events. Two independent reviewers extracted and synthesized the data on study characteristics, methodologies, and outcomes. When reported, tool predictive values were pooled by calculating the arithmetic mean across studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies.
Results:
In total, 100 studies from 37 countries were included, 21 high-, 7 upper-middle, 7 lower-middle, and 2 low-income countries. Thirty-four studies reported a predictive value that involved individual triggers (n = 20) and the original tool (n = 14). The Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was the most frequent trigger tool used to identify adverse events in hospitalized patients, with an average positive predictive value of 54.5%, negative predictive value of 80.9%, sensitivity of 86.6%, and specificity of 68.2%. An average positive predictive value of 43.9%, negative predictive value of 37.8%, sensitivity of 84.5%, and specificity of 11.5% was reported for the Harvard Medical Practice Study.
Conclusion:
Based on the available evidence, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool demonstrates relatively strong predictive values in identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients, with its flexibility and feasibility further supporting its selection as a suitable tool.
Related Concept Videos
01:19Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
01:13Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
01:12Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:11Purpose of Health Records I
Here's a breakdown of how health records serve these purposes:
01:21Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...