Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

References

• Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Stanhope N. Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. BMJ. 1998;316:1154–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nolan TW. System changes to improve patient safety. BMJ. 2000;320:771–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Quality & Safety Commission New-Zealand. The global trigger tool: a review of the evidence (2016 edition) [Internet]. Weelington, NZ; 2016. Available from: www.hqsc.govt.nz
   Google Scholar
• Hannisdal E, Arianson H, Braut GS, et al. A risk analysis of cancer care in Norway: the top 16 patient safety hazards. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:511–516.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Patient Safety Foundation. Free from Harm: Accelerating Patient Safety Improvement Fifteen Years after To Err Is Human. Boston, MA; 2015. Available from: www.npsf.org
   Google Scholar
• Doupi P, Svaar H, Bjørn B, et al. Use of the global trigger tool in patient safety improvement efforts: Nordic experiences. Cogn Technol Work. 2014;17:45–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, et al. “Global trigger tool” shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff. 2011;30:581–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schildmeijer K, Nilsson L, Arestedt K, et al. Assessment of adverse events in medical care: lack of consistency between experienced teams using the global trigger tool. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:307–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanskamp-Sebregts M, Zegers M, Vincent C, et al. Measurement of patient safety: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson TO, Knudsen JL, Lauritsen J, et al. Assessment of the global trigger tool to measure, monitor and evaluate patient safety in cancer patients: reliability concerns are raised. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:571–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deilkås ET, Bukholm G, Lindstrøm JC, et al. Monitoring adverse events in Norwegian hospitals from 2010 to 2013. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mevik K, Griffin FA, Hansen TE, et al. Does increasing the size of bi-weekly samples of records influence results when using the global trigger tool? An observational study of retrospective record reviews of two different sample sizes. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegain Institute of Public health; The Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. Strukturert journal undersøkelse, ved bruk av Global Trigger Tool for å identifisere og måle forekomst av skader i helsetjenesten [Structured journal review, using the GTT method to identify and measure incidence of harm in health care]. Oslo; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin F, Resar R. IHI global trigger tool for measuring adverse events. second ed. IHI Innovation Series white paper; 2009. Available from: www.IHI.org
   Google Scholar
• Hartwig SC, Denger SD, Schneider PJ. Severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program. AM J Hosp Pharm. 1991;48:2611–2616.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cihangir S, Borghans I, Hekkert K, et al. A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurostat Statistics European Union. Hospital discharges and length of stay statistics – statistics explained. Webpage; 2015. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Hospital_discharges_and_length_of_stay_statistics
   Google Scholar
• Rutberg H, Borgstedt Risberg M, Sjödahl R, et al. Characterisations of adverse events detected in a university hospital: a 4-year study using the global trigger tool method. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjertnaes O, Deilkås ET, Skudal KE, et al. The association between patient-reported incidents in hospitals and estimated rates of patient harm. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27:26–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson TO, Knudsen JL, Brixen K, et al. Does adding an appended oncology module to the global trigger tool increase its value?. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26:553–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hébert G, Netzer F, Ferrua M, et al. Evaluating iatrogenic prescribing: development of an oncology-focused trigger tool. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:427–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Registry of Norway. Cancer in Norway 2015 – cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo; 2016. Available from: www.kreftregisteret.no
   Google Scholar
• Kennerly DA, Kudyakov R, da Graca B, et al. Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:1407–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin FA, Classen DC. Detection of adverse events in surgical patients using the trigger tool approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:253–258.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipczak H, Knudsen JL, Nissen A. Safety hazards in cancer care: findings using three different methods. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:1052–1056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar