Vincenza Sansone, Giovanna Paduano, Maria Rosaria D'Emma, Maria Pavia
{"title":"通过全球触发工具评估意大利某大学医院不良事件发生情况。","authors":"Vincenza Sansone, Giovanna Paduano, Maria Rosaria D'Emma, Maria Pavia","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-08617-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The reporting of adverse events (AEs) through incident reporting (IR) is considered a valuable tool to ensure their analysis. In addition, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodologies allow a review of clinical records through triggers. The purposes of this study were to assess the occurrence, type and severity of AEs detected by the GTT, comparing the results with the IR system. A retrospective study was conducted between September and November 2023 in Italy on 500 clinical records of patients admitted in 2022 and 2023. A total of 59 AEs were detected in 45 patients (11.8%), and all were associated with at least one trigger. The most frequent AEs were healthcare-associated infections (HAI) (32.2%), medication (27.1%), procedures (23.7%), and healthcare-related AEs (17%). Only 3.4% of the AEs revealed by GTT were also reported in the IR system. Male sex, higher Charlson index, and length of stay were significantly associated with higher results of AE. Significant predictors of in-hospital death were permanence in intensive care units and exposure to central venous catheter. The GTT demonstrated to be feasible and to provide a broader evaluation of the pattern of AEs in the hospital. The findings suggest the need to rely on multiple data sources and methodologies to identify AEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"23973"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12227586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the occurrence of adverse events through the global trigger tool in a university hospital in Italy.\",\"authors\":\"Vincenza Sansone, Giovanna Paduano, Maria Rosaria D'Emma, Maria Pavia\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-08617-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The reporting of adverse events (AEs) through incident reporting (IR) is considered a valuable tool to ensure their analysis. In addition, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodologies allow a review of clinical records through triggers. The purposes of this study were to assess the occurrence, type and severity of AEs detected by the GTT, comparing the results with the IR system. A retrospective study was conducted between September and November 2023 in Italy on 500 clinical records of patients admitted in 2022 and 2023. A total of 59 AEs were detected in 45 patients (11.8%), and all were associated with at least one trigger. The most frequent AEs were healthcare-associated infections (HAI) (32.2%), medication (27.1%), procedures (23.7%), and healthcare-related AEs (17%). Only 3.4% of the AEs revealed by GTT were also reported in the IR system. Male sex, higher Charlson index, and length of stay were significantly associated with higher results of AE. Significant predictors of in-hospital death were permanence in intensive care units and exposure to central venous catheter. The GTT demonstrated to be feasible and to provide a broader evaluation of the pattern of AEs in the hospital. The findings suggest the need to rely on multiple data sources and methodologies to identify AEs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"23973\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12227586/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08617-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08617-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessment of the occurrence of adverse events through the global trigger tool in a university hospital in Italy.
The reporting of adverse events (AEs) through incident reporting (IR) is considered a valuable tool to ensure their analysis. In addition, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodologies allow a review of clinical records through triggers. The purposes of this study were to assess the occurrence, type and severity of AEs detected by the GTT, comparing the results with the IR system. A retrospective study was conducted between September and November 2023 in Italy on 500 clinical records of patients admitted in 2022 and 2023. A total of 59 AEs were detected in 45 patients (11.8%), and all were associated with at least one trigger. The most frequent AEs were healthcare-associated infections (HAI) (32.2%), medication (27.1%), procedures (23.7%), and healthcare-related AEs (17%). Only 3.4% of the AEs revealed by GTT were also reported in the IR system. Male sex, higher Charlson index, and length of stay were significantly associated with higher results of AE. Significant predictors of in-hospital death were permanence in intensive care units and exposure to central venous catheter. The GTT demonstrated to be feasible and to provide a broader evaluation of the pattern of AEs in the hospital. The findings suggest the need to rely on multiple data sources and methodologies to identify AEs.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.