Characterisations of adverse events detected in a university hospital: a 4-year study using the Global Trigger Tool method.
Rutberg H, Risberg MB, Sjödahl R, Nordqvist P, Valter, L, Nilsson L. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004879.
Hospitals employ various methods to detect adverse events, each with their own advantages and drawbacks. In this study at an academic medical center, the Global Trigger Tool identified an adverse event rate of 20%, and only 6% of these cases were submitted to the voluntary reporting system.
Prevalence and severity of patient harm in a sample of UK-hospitalised children detected by the Paediatric Trigger Tool.
Chapman SM, Fitzsimons J, Davey N, Lachman P. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005066.
Patient Safety in Private Hospitals: the Known and the Unknown Risk.
Leys C, Toft B. London, UK: Centre for Health and the Public Interest; August 2014.
Systematic review and evaluation of physiological track and trigger warning systems for identifying at-risk patients on the ward.
Gao H, McDonnell A, Harrison DA, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:667-79.
BOOK/REPORTView all related resources...
Standing Up for Doctors, Speaking Out for Patients. Final Report.
London, UK: Health Policy & Economic Research Unit, British Medical Association Scotland; May 2010.