Measurement of patient safety: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review

M Hanskamp-Sebregts, M Zegers, P J van Gurp, H C W de Vet, H Wollersheim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademic

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Record review is the most used method to quantify patient safety. We systematically reviewed the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review.

DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library and from their inception through February 2015. We included all studies that aimed to describe the reliability and/or validity of record review. Two reviewers conducted data extraction. We pooled κ values (κ) and analysed the differences in subgroups according to number of reviewers, reviewer experience and training level, adjusted for the prevalence of adverse events.

RESULTS: In 25 studies, the psychometric data of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) and the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) were reported and 24 studies were included for statistical pooling. The inter-raterreliability of the GTT and HMPS showed a pooled κ of 0.65 and 0.55, respectively. The inter-rater agreement was statistically significantly higher when the group of reviewers within a study consisted of a maximum five reviewers. We found no studies reporting on the validity of the GTT and HMPS.

CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of record review is moderate to substantial and improved when a small group of reviewers carried out record review. The validity of the record review method has never been evaluated, while clinical data registries, autopsy or direct observations of patient care are methods that can be used to test concurrent validity.

Translated title of the contributionMeasurement of patient safety: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review
Original languageDutch
Pages (from-to)D1167
JournalNederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
Volume161
Issue number0
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Cite this

Hanskamp-Sebregts, M., Zegers, M., van Gurp, P. J., de Vet, H. C. W., & Wollersheim, H. (2017). Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade? Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 161(0), D1167.
Hanskamp-Sebregts, M ; Zegers, M ; van Gurp, P J ; de Vet, H C W ; Wollersheim, H. / Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade?. In: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. 2017 ; Vol. 161, No. 0. pp. D1167.
@article{6b73c56193cc4db7bfc498a386833a98,
title = "Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Record review is the most used method to quantify patient safety. We systematically reviewed the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review.DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature.METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library and from their inception through February 2015. We included all studies that aimed to describe the reliability and/or validity of record review. Two reviewers conducted data extraction. We pooled κ values (κ) and analysed the differences in subgroups according to number of reviewers, reviewer experience and training level, adjusted for the prevalence of adverse events.RESULTS: In 25 studies, the psychometric data of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) and the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) were reported and 24 studies were included for statistical pooling. The inter-raterreliability of the GTT and HMPS showed a pooled κ of 0.65 and 0.55, respectively. The inter-rater agreement was statistically significantly higher when the group of reviewers within a study consisted of a maximum five reviewers. We found no studies reporting on the validity of the GTT and HMPS.CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of record review is moderate to substantial and improved when a small group of reviewers carried out record review. The validity of the record review method has never been evaluated, while clinical data registries, autopsy or direct observations of patient care are methods that can be used to test concurrent validity.",
keywords = "English Abstract, Journal Article",
author = "M Hanskamp-Sebregts and M Zegers and {van Gurp}, {P J} and {de Vet}, {H C W} and H Wollersheim",
year = "2017",
language = "Dutch",
volume = "161",
pages = "D1167",
journal = "Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde",
issn = "0028-2162",
publisher = "Bohn Stafleu van Loghum",
number = "0",

}

Hanskamp-Sebregts, M, Zegers, M, van Gurp, PJ, de Vet, HCW & Wollersheim, H 2017, 'Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade?' Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 161, no. 0, pp. D1167.

Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade? / Hanskamp-Sebregts, M; Zegers, M; van Gurp, P J; de Vet, H C W; Wollersheim, H.

In: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, Vol. 161, No. 0, 2017, p. D1167.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademic

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade?

AU - Hanskamp-Sebregts, M

AU - Zegers, M

AU - van Gurp, P J

AU - de Vet, H C W

AU - Wollersheim, H

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Record review is the most used method to quantify patient safety. We systematically reviewed the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review.DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature.METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library and from their inception through February 2015. We included all studies that aimed to describe the reliability and/or validity of record review. Two reviewers conducted data extraction. We pooled κ values (κ) and analysed the differences in subgroups according to number of reviewers, reviewer experience and training level, adjusted for the prevalence of adverse events.RESULTS: In 25 studies, the psychometric data of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) and the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) were reported and 24 studies were included for statistical pooling. The inter-raterreliability of the GTT and HMPS showed a pooled κ of 0.65 and 0.55, respectively. The inter-rater agreement was statistically significantly higher when the group of reviewers within a study consisted of a maximum five reviewers. We found no studies reporting on the validity of the GTT and HMPS.CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of record review is moderate to substantial and improved when a small group of reviewers carried out record review. The validity of the record review method has never been evaluated, while clinical data registries, autopsy or direct observations of patient care are methods that can be used to test concurrent validity.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Record review is the most used method to quantify patient safety. We systematically reviewed the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review.DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature.METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library and from their inception through February 2015. We included all studies that aimed to describe the reliability and/or validity of record review. Two reviewers conducted data extraction. We pooled κ values (κ) and analysed the differences in subgroups according to number of reviewers, reviewer experience and training level, adjusted for the prevalence of adverse events.RESULTS: In 25 studies, the psychometric data of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) and the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) were reported and 24 studies were included for statistical pooling. The inter-raterreliability of the GTT and HMPS showed a pooled κ of 0.65 and 0.55, respectively. The inter-rater agreement was statistically significantly higher when the group of reviewers within a study consisted of a maximum five reviewers. We found no studies reporting on the validity of the GTT and HMPS.CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of record review is moderate to substantial and improved when a small group of reviewers carried out record review. The validity of the record review method has never been evaluated, while clinical data registries, autopsy or direct observations of patient care are methods that can be used to test concurrent validity.

KW - English Abstract

KW - Journal Article

M3 - Article

VL - 161

SP - D1167

JO - Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

JF - Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

SN - 0028-2162

IS - 0

ER -

Hanskamp-Sebregts M, Zegers M, van Gurp PJ, de Vet HCW, Wollersheim H. Dossieronderzoek geschikt voor opsporen zorgschade? Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. 2017;161(0):D1167.