Comparing the performance of multiple trigger tools in identifying medication-related hospital readmissions.

Nikki Lips, Amit Singh, Daniala Weir, Fatma Karapinar-Carkit
{"title":"Comparing the performance of multiple trigger tools in identifying medication-related hospital readmissions.","authors":"Nikki Lips, Amit Singh, Daniala Weir, Fatma Karapinar-Carkit","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple trigger tools have been developed to identify medication-related hospital (re)admissions (MRRs); however, the accuracy of these tools in real-world clinical practice is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of four different trigger tools (OPERAM, STOPP/START criteria, ADR-tool, and QUADRAT) to identify MRRs compared with clinical adjudication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of patients readmitted within 30 days to seven departments of a teaching hospital. In the primary study, which involved a retrospective chart review of 1111 readmissions, MRRs and their potential preventability were clinically adjudicated by physicians and pharmacists. In the current study, four trigger tools were applied by a different physician and pharmacist panel. Patients of all ages were included. Trigger tools included both explicit items specifying the event and the associated medication and implicit items requiring clinical knowledge. The accuracy of each trigger tool was assessed by calculating the proportion of clinically adjudicated MRRs each tool identified overall as well as according to explicit and implicit triggers separately. The accuracy of each tool to identify potentially preventable MRRs was also calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1111 readmissions, 181 were adjudicated as medication-related (mean age 69 years, 56% male); 72 (40%) MRRs were potentially preventable. The original OPERAM tool identified 166 (92%) MRRs (62% through explicit triggers). The STOPP/START criteria identified 23 (13%, 7% through explicit triggers), the ADR tool identified 51 (28%, all explicit triggers), and the QUADRAT tool identified 76 (42%; all explicit triggers) MRRs. Of the 72 potentially preventable MRRs, OPERAM identified 59 (82%), STOPP/START identified 18 (25%), ADR identified 20 (28%), and QUADRAT identified 21 (29%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The original OPERAM tool identified the highest proportion of (preventable) MRRs. However, this tool includes many implicit triggers requiring expert clinical knowledge. Future studies should assess the practicality of implementing this tool in daily practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multiple trigger tools have been developed to identify medication-related hospital (re)admissions (MRRs); however, the accuracy of these tools in real-world clinical practice is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of four different trigger tools (OPERAM, STOPP/START criteria, ADR-tool, and QUADRAT) to identify MRRs compared with clinical adjudication.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of patients readmitted within 30 days to seven departments of a teaching hospital. In the primary study, which involved a retrospective chart review of 1111 readmissions, MRRs and their potential preventability were clinically adjudicated by physicians and pharmacists. In the current study, four trigger tools were applied by a different physician and pharmacist panel. Patients of all ages were included. Trigger tools included both explicit items specifying the event and the associated medication and implicit items requiring clinical knowledge. The accuracy of each trigger tool was assessed by calculating the proportion of clinically adjudicated MRRs each tool identified overall as well as according to explicit and implicit triggers separately. The accuracy of each tool to identify potentially preventable MRRs was also calculated.

Results: Of 1111 readmissions, 181 were adjudicated as medication-related (mean age 69 years, 56% male); 72 (40%) MRRs were potentially preventable. The original OPERAM tool identified 166 (92%) MRRs (62% through explicit triggers). The STOPP/START criteria identified 23 (13%, 7% through explicit triggers), the ADR tool identified 51 (28%, all explicit triggers), and the QUADRAT tool identified 76 (42%; all explicit triggers) MRRs. Of the 72 potentially preventable MRRs, OPERAM identified 59 (82%), STOPP/START identified 18 (25%), ADR identified 20 (28%), and QUADRAT identified 21 (29%).

Conclusion: The original OPERAM tool identified the highest proportion of (preventable) MRRs. However, this tool includes many implicit triggers requiring expert clinical knowledge. Future studies should assess the practicality of implementing this tool in daily practice.

比较多种触发工具在识别与用药相关的再入院方面的性能。
背景:目前已开发出多种触发工具来识别与用药相关的入院(再)治疗(MRR),但这些工具在实际临床实践中的准确性尚不确定。本研究旨在比较四种不同触发工具(OPERAM、STOPP/START 标准、ADR-tool 和 QUADRAT)与临床判定相比识别 MRR 的准确性:我们对一家教学医院七个科室 30 天内再次入院的患者进行了二次分析。在对 1111 例再入院患者进行回顾性病历审查的主要研究中,MRR 及其潜在的可预防性由医生和药剂师进行临床判定。在目前的研究中,由不同的医生和药剂师小组应用了四种触发工具。研究对象包括所有年龄段的患者。触发工具既包括明确说明事件和相关药物的显性项目,也包括需要临床知识的隐性项目。每种触发工具的准确性都是通过计算每种工具总体上以及根据显性和隐性触发分别确定的临床裁定 MRR 的比例来评估的。同时还计算了每种工具识别潜在可预防的 MRR 的准确性:在 1111 例再入院病例中,181 例被判定为与用药相关(平均年龄 69 岁,56% 为男性);72 例(40%)MRR 可能是可预防的。最初的 OPERAM 工具确定了 166 例(92%)再住院病例(62% 是通过明确的触发因素确定的)。STOPP/START 标准识别出 23 例(13%,7% 通过明确触发),ADR 工具识别出 51 例(28%,均为明确触发),QUADRAT 工具识别出 76 例(42%,均为明确触发)MRR。在 72 个潜在可预防的 MRR 中,OPERAM 发现了 59 个(82%),STOPP/START 发现了 18 个(25%),ADR 发现了 20 个(28%),QUADRAT 发现了 21 个(29%):结论:最初的 OPERAM 工具发现的(可预防的)MRR 比例最高。结论:最初的 OPERAM 工具能识别出最高比例的(可预防的)MRR,但该工具包含许多隐含的触发因素,需要专家的临床知识。未来的研究应评估在日常实践中使用该工具的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信