Development and Use of Ambulatory Adverse Event Trigger Tools (Text Version)
On September 29, 2010, Jonathan R. Nebeker made this presentation at the 2010 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (595 KB).
Development and Use of Ambulatory Adverse Event Trigger Tools
Jonathan R. Nebeker
Sept. 29, 2010
Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA,
VA Center for Organization, Leadership and Management Research (COLMR), Boston MA
Sponsored by AHRQ Contract No. HHSA290200600012, Task Order Officer: Amy Helwig, MD
- PI Amy Rosen, PhD
- Co-PI Jonathan Nebeker, MD, MS
- Stephan Gaehde, MD
- Haytham Kaafarani, MD, MPH
- Brenna Long, MA
- Hillary Mull, MPP
- Brian Nordberg, BS
- Steve Pickard, MS
- Peter Rivard, PhD
- Lucy Savitz, PhD, MBA
- Chris Shanahan, MD, MPH
- Stephanie Shimada, PhD
- ADE Surveillance rules:
- Complex to maximize PPV and Sensitivity.
- Action-Oriented to make a difference for patient.
- Use input from system-based focus groups and experts with practical experience.
Image: A flowchart depicts the following process:
Structured design → Delphi Panel → Focus Group → Assessment
Image: A sample form shows a drug-event trigger.
Mull H & Nebeker JR, Informatics Tools for the Development of Action-Oriented Adverse Drug Event Triggers, 2008. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings Nov 6:505-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2655939/
Example of Complex Trigger
- [Dose change in GFR reducer or renal toxin and subsequent creatinine > 50% from average baseline creatinine value or > 33% from last post dose change creatinine value] AND (No new trimethoprim within 1 day prior to 7 days after creatinine lab value firing) AND (GFR Reducer or renal toxin used within 90 days prior to lab value).
- Suppress If: Renal toxin or GFR reducer dose reduced 0-7 days after lab) OR ( new creatinine lab result within 1-6days of firing lab value).
Results: Focus Group/Interviews
Image: A bar chart displays the following information:
- 50% national experts, 50% local clinical leaders.
- Got perspectives that represented emphasis of research or clinical experience.
- ED doc liked delirium trigger.
- Various, contradictory input on thresholds.
- Helpful modifications.
- Interesting insights on what would be useful.
- Requested sets of 2,000 pts based on exposure to target meds.
- Got 1,059 to 9,339 → IRB amendment.
- Restricted to patients with 2 notes in 1 year.
- 1° PPV = number of patients with AE/number of cases triggered.
- 2° Sensitivity, if prevalence >5% (for 25% CI width) (highest was 4%).
Ignore the CI behind the curtain
Image: A line graph shows sensitivity and positive predictive value for trigger systems.
Nebeker JR, Stoddard GJ & Rosen AK, Considering Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value in Comparing the Performance of Triggers Systems for Iatrogenic Adverse Events, Proceedings of the Trigger and TIDS Expert Meeting, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, June 2008. Bethesda, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/events/other/triggers/triggers2.html
- PSO Harm scale
- WHO Causality criteria (certain or probable)
- Explicit criteria
- Lab values without symptoms are not harm
- Change in care (useful):
- e.g., prevented additional lab draw
|Trigger||Reviewed/ Flagged||Harm PPV (CI)||Change PPV (CI)||Either PPV (CI)|
- Harm is in the eye of the beholder: less or more?
- Doomed to benchmarking apples with oranges?
- Explicit criteria.
- Potential to affect practice.
- Are complex trigger better?