Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content
Review

Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review.

Hibbert PD, Molloy CJ, Schultz TJ, et al. Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(3):mzad056. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzad056.

Save
Print
August 16, 2023
Hibbert PD, Molloy CJ, Schultz TJ, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(3):mzad056.
View more articles from the same authors.

Accurate and reliable detection and measurement of adverse events remains challenging. This systematic review examined the difference in adverse events detected using the Global Trigger Tool compared to those detected via incident reporting systems. In 12 of the 14 included studies, less than 10% of adverse events detected using the Global Trigger Tool were also found in corresponding incident reporting systems. The authors of the review emphasize the importance of using multiple approaches and sources of patient safety data to enhance adverse event detection.

Save
Print
Cite
Citation

Hibbert PD, Molloy CJ, Schultz TJ, et al. Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(3):mzad056. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzad056.