[Using Trigger Tool to detect incidents and adverse events in a mutual insurance company that collaborate with the Social Security system].

Q4 Medicine
Jordi Ortner Sancho, Rafael Manzanera López, Norma Grau Balcells, Diego José Moya Alcocer, Xavier Farrús Esteban, Jose Miguel Martínez
{"title":"[Using Trigger Tool to detect incidents and adverse events in a mutual insurance company that collaborate with the Social Security system].","authors":"Jordi Ortner Sancho,&nbsp;Rafael Manzanera López,&nbsp;Norma Grau Balcells,&nbsp;Diego José Moya Alcocer,&nbsp;Xavier Farrús Esteban,&nbsp;Jose Miguel Martínez","doi":"10.12961/aprl.2020.23.03.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate differences between the detection of incidents or adverse events (I/AE) using a Trigger Tool (TT) and voluntary notification platform (SNEA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study population is the working population attended on an outpatient basis in an Insurance Company (\"mutua\") from January to September 2016. The cases declared as Incident or Adverse Event (I / AE) were selected through the SNEA (21 cases), according to whether the event has not affected the patient or on the contrary has affected him. On the other hand, 20 clinical histories per month were randomly selected where the TT was applied(180 cases). The 201 clinical histories were reviewed looking for the existence of triggers. The agreement between the SNEA system and the TT was evaluated using proportion of positive agreement (I/EA), proportion of negative agreement (not I/EA) and Kappa index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TT detected I/EA cases in 41.3% of the revisions while the SNEA was 10.3% (p<0.001). The Kappa index showed a low concordance value (Kappa = 0.12), which indicates the small coincidence of I/EA detected by both systems. The proportion of negative agreement was greater than that of positive agreement (74.5% versus 26.9%). The SNEA system detected less I/ EA and above all it deals with fewer incidents. On the contrary, the TT system detected a greater number of I EA and especially EA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Trigger Tool is a recommended tool for the detection of incidents or adverse events that can complement the one obtained through voluntary notification platform in the reality of a \"mutua\".</p>","PeriodicalId":38326,"journal":{"name":"Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales","volume":"23 3","pages":"343-356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2020.23.03.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate differences between the detection of incidents or adverse events (I/AE) using a Trigger Tool (TT) and voluntary notification platform (SNEA).

Methods: The study population is the working population attended on an outpatient basis in an Insurance Company ("mutua") from January to September 2016. The cases declared as Incident or Adverse Event (I / AE) were selected through the SNEA (21 cases), according to whether the event has not affected the patient or on the contrary has affected him. On the other hand, 20 clinical histories per month were randomly selected where the TT was applied(180 cases). The 201 clinical histories were reviewed looking for the existence of triggers. The agreement between the SNEA system and the TT was evaluated using proportion of positive agreement (I/EA), proportion of negative agreement (not I/EA) and Kappa index.

Results: TT detected I/EA cases in 41.3% of the revisions while the SNEA was 10.3% (p<0.001). The Kappa index showed a low concordance value (Kappa = 0.12), which indicates the small coincidence of I/EA detected by both systems. The proportion of negative agreement was greater than that of positive agreement (74.5% versus 26.9%). The SNEA system detected less I/ EA and above all it deals with fewer incidents. On the contrary, the TT system detected a greater number of I EA and especially EA.

Conclusions: Trigger Tool is a recommended tool for the detection of incidents or adverse events that can complement the one obtained through voluntary notification platform in the reality of a "mutua".

[在与社会保障系统合作的互助保险公司中使用触发工具检测事件和不良事件]。
目的:评价使用触发工具(TT)和自愿通知平台(SNEA)检测事件或不良事件(I/AE)的差异。方法:研究人群为2016年1 - 9月在某保险公司(“mutua”)门诊就诊的工作人群。通过SNEA(21例)选择宣布为事件或不良事件(I / AE)的病例,根据事件是否对患者产生影响或相反的影响。另一方面,每月随机选择20例临床病史(180例)进行TT治疗。回顾201例临床病史,寻找诱因的存在。采用正面一致比例(I/EA)、负面一致比例(非I/EA)和Kappa指数评价SNEA系统与TT之间的一致性。结果:TT检测I/EA病例的比例为41.3%,而SNEA为10.3% (p结论:Trigger Tool是一种推荐的事件或不良事件检测工具,可以补充“互助”现实中通过自愿通知平台获得的事件或不良事件。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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