Application of Global Trigger Tool to Identify Adverse Drug Reactions in Patients of the Infectious Hospital

Skryabina A. A.
Assistant, Chair for Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology of the Faculty of Medicine¹

Tereshkin N. A.
Intern, Chair for Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology of the Faculty of Medicine¹

Nikiforov V. V.
Doctor of Medicine, Professor, Head, Chair for Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology of the Faculty of Medicine¹

Kashirin V. I.
MD, Department Head²

Antipyat N. A.
MD, Deputy Chief Medical Officer²

Zastrozhin M. S.
Doctor of Medicine, Assistant Professor, Chair for Addictions³

Sychev D. A.
Corresponding Member of the RAS, Doctor of Medicine, Professor, Head, Chair for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapy³

1 - Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
2 - Infectious Clinical Hospital No.1, Moscow, Russian Federation
3 - Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russian Federation

Skryabina Anna Aleksandrovna; e-mail: anna.skryabina.85@mail.ru.

The study had no sponsorship.

None declared.

The widespread use of macrolide antibiotics in clinical practice emphasizes the need to address issues related to their safety and the possible development of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). One of the common methods of identifying ADRs through retrospective analysis of medical records is the global trigger tool (GTT) proposed in 2003. Objective. Study aimed to conduct a retrospective analysis of medical records of patients of the infectious hospital for the detection of triggers of ADRs. Material and methods. A retrospective study of medical records of 150 patients who were treated at the Infectious Clinical Hospital No.1 in 2020-2022, using the GTT was carried out. The selection of medical records to search for the triggers was performed by random sampling from the records with established diagnoses of lower respiratory tract infections (bronchitis, pneumonia) and upper respiratory tract infections (sinusitis, tonsillitis). Results. After an analysis of 150 case histories, 36 triggers and 22 cases of ADRs were identified by two independent investigators. It was found that the most frequently used antibiotic from the macrolide group was azithromycin, which was prescribed in 131 cases (87.3%). In the remaining 19 patients, erythromycin was prescribed (12.7%). Discussion. All of the identified ADRs were classified as having been temporarily detrimental to the patients’ health. Most of the detected ADRs occurred during the use of standard treatment regimens and were not preventable. Conclusion. It was found that the application of GTT in clinical practice will allow to identify implicit adverse events and simplify their search in general.

global trigger tool; adverse events; adverse drug reactions; therapy safety; macrolides

10.29234/2308-9113-2023-11-2-42-55

1. Voskanyan Yu.E. Bezopasnost' patsientov i svyazannye s ney neblagopriyatnye sobytiya v meditsine (sistematicheskiy obzor). [Patient safety and related adverse events in medicine (systematic review).] Problemy sotsial'noy gigieny, zdravookhraneniya i istorii meditsiny [Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health, and History of Medicine] 2019; 27(4): 408-413. (In Russ.)

2. Sharek P.J. The Emergence of the Trigger Tool as the Premier Measurement Strategy for Patient Safety. AHRQ WebM&M 2012; 2012(5): 120.

3. Jick H. Drugs – remarkably nontoxic. N Engl J Med 1974; 291(16):824-828, doi: 10.1056/NEJM197410172911605

4. Classen D.C., Pestotnik S.L., Evans R.S., Burke J.P. Description of a computerized adverse drug event monitor using a hospital information system. Hospital Pharmacy 1992; 27(9): 774, 776-779, 783.

5. Classen D.C., Lloyd R.C., Provost L., Griffin F.A., Resar R. Development and evaluation of the institute for healthcare improvement global trigger tool. J Patient Saf 2008; 4(3): 169-177.

6. Griffin F.A., Resar R.K. IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events (Second Edition). IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009.

7. Stroupe L.M., Patra K.P., Dai Z., Lancaster J., Ahmed A., et al. Measuring Harm in Hospitalized Children via a Trigger Tool. J Pediatr Nurs 2018; 41: 9-15, doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2017.09.010

8. Classen D.C., Resar R., Griffin F., Federico F., Frankel T., et al. ‘Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30(4): 581-589, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0190

9. Grossmann N., Gratwohl F., Musy S.N., Nielen N.M., Donzé J., et al. Describing adverse events in medical inpatients using the Global Trigger Tool. Swiss Med Wkly 2019; 149: w20149, doi: 10.4414/smw.2019.20149

10. Nazarenko A.G., Ivanov I.V., Shchesyul' A.G., Shimanskiy V.N., Savin I.A. i dr. Monitoring triggerov neblagopriyatnykh sobytiy kak instrument upravleniya kachestvom meditsinskoy pomoshchi v neyrokhirurgicheskoy klinike. Priglashenie k diskussii. [Monitoring of adverse event triggers as a tool for managing the quality of care in a neurosurgical clinic. Invitation to discussion.] Voprosy neyrokhirurgii imeni N.N. Burdenko [N.N. Burdenko Issues in Neurosurgery] 2019; 83(6): 35-43, doi: 10.17116/neiro20198306135. (In Russ.)

11. Ivashchenko D., Buromskaya N., Savchenko L., Shevchenko Y., Sychev D. Global trigger tool in child psychiatry: treatment safety evaluation in adolescents with an acute psychotic episode. Int J Risk Saf Med 2020; 31(1) :25-35, doi: 10.3233/JRS-195030

12. Ivashchenko D.V., Buromskaya N.I., Savchenko L.M., Shevchenko Yu.S., Sychev D.A. Znachenie metoda global'nykh triggerov dlya vyyavleniya neblagopriyatnykh sobytiy, svyazannykh s okazaniem meditsinskoy pomoshchi v pediatrii. [The Value of the Global Trigger Method for Identifying Adverse Events in Pediatric Medical Care.] Meditsinskiy sovet [Medical Council] 2018; 17: 56-65. (In Russ.)

13. Doupi P., Svaar H., Bjørn B., Deilkås E., Nylén U., et al. Use of the Global Trigger Tool in patient safety improvement efforts: Nordic experiences. Cogn Tech Work 2015; 17: 45-54.

14. Nigmatkulova M.D., Kleymenova E.B., Yashina L.P., Sychev D.A. Obespechenie preemstvennosti lekarstvennoy terapii s pomoshch'yu standartnogo operatsionnogo protokola. [Ensuring continuity of drug therapy using a standard operating protocol.] Tikhookeanskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal [Pacific Medical Journal] 2019; 1(75): 13-17. (In Russ.)

15. Kaushal R., Bates D.W., Landrigan C., McKenna K.J., Clapp M.D., et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 2001; 285(16): 2114-20, doi: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2114

16. Thomas E.J., Brennan T.A. Incidence and types of preventable adverse events in elderly patients: population-based review of medical records. BMJ 2000; 320(7237): 741-744, doi: 10.1136/ bmj.320.7237.741

17. Beijer H.J., de Blaey C.J. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24(2): 46-54, doi: 10.1023/A:1015570104121

18. Kongkaew C., Noyce P.R., Ashcroft D.M. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008; 42(7): 1017-1025, doi: 10.1345/aph.1L037

19. Pandya A.D., Patel K., Rana D., Gupta S.D., Malhotra S.D., et al. Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020; 24(3): 172-178, doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367

20. Halfon P., Staines A., Burnand B. Adverse events related to hospital care: a retrospective medical records review in a Swiss hospital. Int J Qual Health Care 2017; 29(4): 527-533, doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx061