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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |