Cargando…

Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications

PURPOSE: Traditionally, registering complications after surgery is based on voluntary reporting or incident reports. These methods may fail to detect the total number of complications. A trigger tool was developed to detect complications in hospitalized surgical patients. In this diagnostic study, w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Visser, A., Slaman, A. E., van Leijen, C. M., Gouma, D. J., Goslings, J. C., Ubbink, D. T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26358035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1337-4
_version_ 1782398890157277184
author Visser, A.
Slaman, A. E.
van Leijen, C. M.
Gouma, D. J.
Goslings, J. C.
Ubbink, D. T.
author_facet Visser, A.
Slaman, A. E.
van Leijen, C. M.
Gouma, D. J.
Goslings, J. C.
Ubbink, D. T.
author_sort Visser, A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Traditionally, registering complications after surgery is based on voluntary reporting or incident reports. These methods may fail to detect the total number of complications. A trigger tool was developed to detect complications in hospitalized surgical patients. In this diagnostic study, we compared its sensitivity and specificity with the verbal inventory by surgical staff and residents. METHODS: A set of 31 potential triggers was chosen based on a systematic review and availability in hospital databases. The trigger tool was developed using multivariable regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses. A reference standard consisted of 300 patients, 150 with and 150 without complications. Sensitivity and specificity of the trigger tool and verbal inventory were determined. RESULTS: The final trigger tool consisted of nine triggers. Sensitivities of the trigger tool and verbal inventory were 70.7 vs. 78.7 %, respectively, while specificities were 70.0 vs. 100.0 %, respectively. Sensitivity values to detect major complications were 97.2 vs. 80.6 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed customized trigger tool for a university hospital to detect surgical patients with complications appeared as accurate as a verbal inventory and even more accurate to detect major complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4631719
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46317192015-11-09 Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications Visser, A. Slaman, A. E. van Leijen, C. M. Gouma, D. J. Goslings, J. C. Ubbink, D. T. Langenbecks Arch Surg Original Article PURPOSE: Traditionally, registering complications after surgery is based on voluntary reporting or incident reports. These methods may fail to detect the total number of complications. A trigger tool was developed to detect complications in hospitalized surgical patients. In this diagnostic study, we compared its sensitivity and specificity with the verbal inventory by surgical staff and residents. METHODS: A set of 31 potential triggers was chosen based on a systematic review and availability in hospital databases. The trigger tool was developed using multivariable regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses. A reference standard consisted of 300 patients, 150 with and 150 without complications. Sensitivity and specificity of the trigger tool and verbal inventory were determined. RESULTS: The final trigger tool consisted of nine triggers. Sensitivities of the trigger tool and verbal inventory were 70.7 vs. 78.7 %, respectively, while specificities were 70.0 vs. 100.0 %, respectively. Sensitivity values to detect major complications were 97.2 vs. 80.6 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed customized trigger tool for a university hospital to detect surgical patients with complications appeared as accurate as a verbal inventory and even more accurate to detect major complications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-09-10 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4631719/ /pubmed/26358035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1337-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Visser, A.
Slaman, A. E.
van Leijen, C. M.
Gouma, D. J.
Goslings, J. C.
Ubbink, D. T.
Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
title Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
title_full Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
title_fullStr Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
title_full_unstemmed Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
title_short Trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
title_sort trigger tool versus verbal inventory to detect surgical complications
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26358035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1337-4
work_keys_str_mv AT vissera triggertoolversusverbalinventorytodetectsurgicalcomplications
AT slamanae triggertoolversusverbalinventorytodetectsurgicalcomplications
AT vanleijencm triggertoolversusverbalinventorytodetectsurgicalcomplications
AT goumadj triggertoolversusverbalinventorytodetectsurgicalcomplications
AT goslingsjc triggertoolversusverbalinventorytodetectsurgicalcomplications
AT ubbinkdt triggertoolversusverbalinventorytodetectsurgicalcomplications