Skip to main content
Download PDF

Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China

BMC Health Services Research volume 24, Article number: 72 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Pregnant women belong to the special population of drug therapy, and their physiological state, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are significantly different from the general population. Drug safety during pregnancy involves two generations, which is a hot issue widely concerned in the whole society. Global Trigger Tool (GTT) of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has been wildly used as a patient safety measurement strategy by several institutions and national programs, and the effectiveness had been demonstrated. But only one study reports the use of GTT in obstetric delivery until now. The aim of the study is to establish triggers detecting adverse drug events (ADEs) suitable for obstetric inpatients on the basis of the GTT, to examine the performance of the obstetric triggers in detecting ADEs experienced by obstetric units compared with the spontaneous reporting system and GTT, and to assess the utility and value of the obstetric trigger tool in identifying ADEs of obstetric inpatients.

Methods

Based on a literature review searched in PubMed and CNKI from January of 1997 to October of 2023, retrospective local obstetric ADEs investigations, relevant obstetric guidelines and the common adverse reactions of obstetric therapeutic drugs were involved to establish the initial obstetric triggers. According to the Delphi method, two rounds of expert questionnaire survey were conducted among 16 obstetric and neonatological physicians and pharmacists until an agreement was reached. A retrospective study was conducted to identity ADEs in 300 obstetric inpatient records at the Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital from June 1 to September 30, 2018. Two trained junior pharmacists analyzed the first eligible records independently, and the included records reviewed by trained pharmacist and physician to identify ADEs. Sensitivity and specificity of the established obstetric triggers were assessed by the number of ADEs/100 patients and positive predictive value with the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and GTT. Excel 2010 and SPSS22 were used for data analysis.

Results

Through two rounds of expert investigation, 39 preliminary triggers were established that comprised four modules (12 laboratory tests, 9 medications, 14 symptoms, and 4 outcomes). A total of 300 medical records were reviewed through the obstetric triggers, of which 48 cases of ADEs were detected, with an incidence of ADEs of 16%. Among the 39 obstetric triggers, 22 (56.41%) were positive and 11 of them detected ADEs. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 36.36%, and the number of ADEs/100 patients was 16.33 (95% CI, 4.19–17.81). The ADE detection rate, positive trigger rate, and PPV for the obstetric triggers were significantly augmented, confirming that the obstetric triggers were more specific and sensitive than SRS and GTT.

Conclusion

The obstetric triggers were proven to be sensitive and specific in the active monitoring of ADE for obstetric inpatients, which might serve as a reference for ADE detection of obstetric inpatients at medical institutions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Adverse drug event (ADE) is an injury caused by drug-related medical interventions, including non-preventable adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and preventable medication errors [1, 2]. As one of the leading causes of deaths, hospitalizations, and increased treatment costs [3,4,5,6,7], the effective identification and supervision of ADEs has become a major concern of scientific research and health management departments. The fact that most ADEs are preventable makes the monitoring and reporting of ADEs particularly important [8, 9]. The Global Trigger Tool (GTT), an active monitoring tool launched by the Institute for Health Care Improvement (IHI) in 2003 and revised in 2009, is able to detect medically related adverse events with six modules of “nursing”, “medication”, “surgical”, “intensive care”, “perinatal”, and “emergency” [10]. Compared with the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and adverse event medical record review, GTT purposefully locates ADE-related content, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of case review [11]. Numerous studies have validated the accuracy and effectiveness of GTT in ADE monitoring. The translation and revision of the GTT White Paper are established to adapt to national circumstances, study population and healthcare facility. However, studies in special populations have mainly focused on elderly, pediatric, cancer, and intensive care unit (ICU) inpatients, and only one study has explored the applicability of GTT in obstetric populations [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].

Chinese society is currently dealing with challenges of declining and delaying fertility intentions of women at childbearing age, increasing infertility rates and aging of maternal [22]. The risk of maternal and infant exposure to medication during pregnancy increased alongside with the incidence of pregnancy complications [23, 24]. In addition, there are significant changes in the pharmacokinetic profile of pregnant population [25, 26]. A study in France [27] showed that ADRs were more common in pregnant patients than in non-pregnant patients. Among 53,426 ADRs documented in Sichuan Province between November 2016 and November 2017, a mere 1309 ADRs pertained to pregnant patients, constituting a mere 2.45% of the total [28]. In 2016, the International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD) / China Center Clinical Safety Medication Group recorded a total of 84 medication errors involving pregnant and lactating patients, accounting for 1.27% of the 6624 reported nationwide medication errors [29]. The limited efficiency of prevailing reporting methodologies, coupled with the few information-reporting members within INRUD China, particularly within women’s and children’s specialty hospitals, contributed to the relatively diminutive number of reported medication errors. As a result, ADEs in obstetric patients may has been potentially underestimated. In this study we devised a novel trigger tool with high-efficiency, leveraging the GTT which can be implemented to identify ADEs in obstetric inpatients retrospectively. Based on detectable results, the trigger tool could then be modified to align with Chinese obstetric inpatients.

Methods

Literature search

We systematically reviewed the literature spanning from January 1997 to October 2023, utilizing PubMed and CNKI database, employing the keywords “gestational trigger tool”, “trigger tool”, “gestational”, “obstetric”, “trigger tool”, “obstetrics”, and “pregnancy”. Our inclusion criteria comprised (1) specific trigger entries; (2) application of triggers in obstetric patients experiencing ADEs; and (3) incorporation of detection results. Upon scrutinizing the abstracts and results of the literature obtained through the search, we found that as of October 2023, only one GTT-based study was conducted in a maternal population, using the 44 triggers of the Swedish adaption and translation of GTT [21]. Therefore, triggers applied to general adult inpatients were included.

Trigger extraction and revision

Preliminary triggers were extracted from the included literature. Subsequently, guided by obstetric guidelines, ADEs among obstetric patients documented in the Chinese National Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System (NADRMS), prevalent ADEs associated with pharmaceutical interventions for special obstetric conditions, and in sight from the Williams Handbook of Obstetrics, our results underwent comprehensive evaluation by a review panel composed of pharmacists and physicians.

Delphi experts investigation

The Delphi method [30] was employed to administer an expert survey within the scope of this study. A cohort of 16 comprising obstetricians, neonatologists and pharmacists was randomly selected from healthcare facilities nationwide, following a process of informed and voluntary basis. The initial set of triggers underwent modifications based on expert recommendations, encompassing the rationale and interpretation of entry parameters. Following two rounds of revisions, triggers exhibiting high consistency among experts were retained.

Retrospective records review

The study was undertaken following the approval of the ethical review committee at Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital. A total of 300 discharged medical records from the aforementioned hospital, pertaining to the third quarter of 2018, was selected through a random sampling process. The specified inclusion criteria encompassed (1) medical records discharged between July 1, 2018, and September 30, 2018; (2) obstetric inpatients with a gestational age of ≥ 28 weeks; (3) individuals aged between 16 and 65 years; and (4) patients with a hospitalization duration exceeding 48 h. Exclusion criteria were applied to (1) cases lacking treatment-related medication records; and (2) instances where essential primary data from the inpatient medical records were absent.

Our review panel was instituted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the IHI white paper. Initial scrutiny of the foundational obstetric triggers was conducted by two junior pharmacists, followed by a comprehensive review by a senior pharmacist and a physician. Based upon the records, the panel appraised the presence of a positive trigger and ascertained the occurrence of an ADE, arriving at a consensus on these matter. The causality of the ADE was assessed according to the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC) standards, including certain, probable/likely, possible, unlikely, conditional/unclassified, and inaccessible/unclassifiable as shown in Table 1. Obstetricians and pharmacists conducted a comprehensive review of triggered items, judged symptoms based on the WHO-UMC causality categories, and categorized specific medical records (certain, probable/likely medical records) in the category of ADEs [31]. In accordance with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 5.0, the severity of the ADE injuries was stratified into five levels [32], as presented in Table 2. Flowchart of the study sample process and medical record review sheet for the application of the obstetric trigger tool are accessible in supplementary documents.

Table 1 WHO-UMC causality categories
Full size table
Table 2 CTCAE5.0 General Guideline
Full size table

The causality determination and severity classification were compared with the GTT and SRS to scrutinize and substantiate the effectiveness of the formulated obstetric triggers. Subsequently, the triggers underwent revision based on the outcomes of the review.

Sensitivity assessment of the triggers was conducted through adverse events per 100 admissions, adverse events per 1000 patient days, and ADE detection rate; while specificity was appraised utilizing trigger PPV analysis (ADE detection frequency/trigger-positive trigger frequency).

Statistical method

Excel 2010 and SPSS 22.0 were used to analyze the data with descriptive statistics displaying frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations. Regression analysis was performed to determine the correlation of the variables. Statistical significance was established when the P-value fell below 0.05.

Results

Trigger extraction and revision

We included 43 [4, 8,9,10,11, 13, 16, 20, 21, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66] articles based on our inclusion criteria, with almost half of them addressing the triggers recommended in the white paper. A total of 41 triggers were identified from various sources, including the articles, the white paper, physiologic changes during pregnancy, the common ADEs of drugs administered to obstetric patients for specific conditions, the Williams Handbook of Obstetrics [67], the obstetric guidelines, and a study of ADEs of obstetric patients [28]. 39 triggers (Table 3) were ultimately defined through two rounds of expert surveys involving modifications to the initially identified 41 triggers, organized into four distinct modules encompassing 12 triggers related to laboratory examinations, 9 related to medications, 14 related to symptoms, and 4 related to outcomes.

Table 3 Triggers and PPV
Full size table

Patient characteristics

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 300 eligible cases were systematically chosen through random selection, with an average age of 27.45 years, ranging from 18 to 43 years. The duration of hospitalization varied between 2 and 10 days, with an average length of stay recorded at 4.34 days. Within the cohort of 300 subjects, there were 115 instances of cesarean section, 162 cases of natural delivery, and 23 occurrences of fetal preservation. Among the latter, 8 cases were related to threatened premature delivery, 11 cases were associated with gestational cholestasis, 3 cases involved fetal growth restriction, and one case manifested abnormal liver enzymes during gestation.

Triggers

We conducted a comprehensive examination of 300 medical records utilizing aforesaid 39 triggers. Among these, 22 triggers (56.41%) yielded positive results, and 11 of them successfully identified ADEs. In total, 49 ADEs were reviewed, with only one case (0.33%) not triggering any of the designated entries during the evaluation process. Within the cohort of 300 obstetric inpatients, 120 exhibited positive triggers, resulting in a positive rate of 40.00%. Notably, a total of 154 triggers were identified as positive, indicating an average of 1.28 triggers per patient. The frequency of ADE detection amounted to 56 cases, yielding a PPV of 36.36%. The ratio of ADEs per 100 patients was 16.33 (95% CI, 4.19–17.81), while the ADEs per 1000 patients*days was 36.89 (96% CI, 32.72–41.07). The detailed results of trigger monitoring can be found in Table 3.

49 ADE cases were identified through the implementation of obstetric triggers, with the detection rate of 97.96%. Additionally, 9 ADEs were identified using the 13 triggers recommended in the white paper, resulting in a detection rate of 18.37%. Concurrently, 7 ADE cases were reported in the SRS, with a corresponding ADE detection rate of 14.29%. The comparison results of these three methods are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 ADE detection status among the three methods
Full size table

As depicted in Table 5, five triggers of the GTT were positive, yielding a positivity rate of 38.46%. 31 of the 300 obstetric inpatients had positive triggers, with a positive rate of 10.33%. Of these, 31 triggers were detected as positive, with an average of one trigger per patient. 10 ADEs were detected and the PPV was 32.26%.

Table 5 Trigger conditions for the GTT
Full size table

In comparison to the SRS and the GTT, the obstetric triggers exhibited a notably elevation in the ADE detection rate, positive trigger rate, and PPV value, confirming the specificity and sensitivity of the obstetric triggers.

Characteristics of ADEs

49 cases of ADE were detected, with an incidence of 16.33%. The detected ADEs contained 10 categories primarily affecting the cardiovascular system (17 cases, 34.69%), gastrointestinal system (12 cases, 24.49%), female reproductive system (eight cases, 16.33%), and the fetus (seven cases, 14.29%).

15 distinct drug types were implicated, with the foremost three being medications for the reproductive system (31 cases, 52.54%), electrolyte drugs (primarily magnesium sulfate injection) (10 cases, 16.95%), and central nervous system drugs (10 cases, 16.95%).

In accordance with the CTCAE5.0, 17 cases of ADEs were categorized as grade 1 (17/49, 34.6%), 27 cases as grade 2, (27/49, 55.10%), and 5 cases as level 3, (5/49, 10.20%). No instances of grade 4 or grade 5 severity were identified.

Risk factors

In our logistic regression analysis (Table 6), the variables of age, hospitalization duration (in days), the quantity of drugs administered, and whether a cesarean section or vaginal delivery was performed did not demonstrate statistical significance (P > 0.05). Conversely, the variable representing the number of administered antimicrobials yielded statistical significance, aligning with previous literature suggesting that antimicrobial medication serves as a risk factor for ADEs [6]. Nevertheless, the regression coefficient β was negative, signifying a negative correlation with the incidence of ADEs, which may be attributed to the influence of the included risk factors in our study and a potentially inadequate sample size. Inadequate sample sizes may result in insufficient representation of ADE occurrences, consequently yielding less representative experimental results. Although the Mevik’s study showed that enlargement in sample size did not markedly increase the type and severity of ADEs, it did enhance the detection rate of ADEs [68]. Boxun Chen’s incorporation of triggers into the information system resulted in a more than fourfold increase in the ADE cases detected after one year compared to the period before the intervention [69]. Thus, for future analyses, it is imperative to expand the sample size to achieve a closer approximation to the actual incidence of ADEs. Additionally, consideration of other potential risk factors is warranted to comprehensively understand the complex dynamics influencing ADE occurrence.

Table 6 Logistic regression results of risk factors for the occurrence of ADE
Full size table

Discussion

Sample size

We randomly selected 300 medical records for the purpose of our analysis, averaging 50 copies biweekly, surpassing the sample size outlined in the white paper. The Mevik’s [68] study indicated that augmenting the sample size produced no significant effect on the type and severity of ADE detection; however, it did contribute to an elevation in the detection rate of ADEs. In our current study, the ADE detection rate stood at 36.89 ADEs per 1000 patient days, a figure closely aligning with the rate of 39.3 ADEs per 1000 patient days in Mevik’s study [68], where 70 samples were drawn every two weeks (totaling 1680). Nevertheless, the inclusion of the medical records was concentrated in the third quarter, potentially introducing bias into our findings. Consequently, to conduct a comprehensive analysis of risk factors of ADEs in obstetric inpatient and to enhance the ADE detection rate, further expansion of our study’s sample size is warranted.

ADE detection

A total of 48 ADEs were detected through the established obstetric triggers, and the incidence of ADE was comparable to the findings reported in existing literature, ranging between 10% and 20%. The majority of the detected ADEs, constituting 89.8%, were characterized as mild-to-moderate injuries. Notably, there were no instances of ADEs resulting in permanent injuries or fatalities, which potentially attributed to the limitations imposed by the sample size. The predominant categories of identified ADEs were associated with the cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal system, and female reproductive system, accounting for 34.69%, 24.49%, and 16.33%, respectively. The cardiovascular system injuries were specifically manifested as elevated blood pressure and hypotension. Blood pressures that exceeded 140/90 mmHg were primarily due to the use of oxytocin and ergonovine, while hypotension was caused by magnesium sulfate. The application of prostaglandin drugs led to nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or other gastrointestinal disturbances and excessive uterine shrinkage. This ADE-detection result was consistent with the clinical medication characteristics of obstetric inpatients and a study on the occurrence of ADRs in local obstetric patients [28].

However, in patients with high-risk pregnancies, the manifestations of complications are very similar to the symptoms of ADE caused by the therapeutic agents, posing challenges in discerning the presence of an ADE. For example, patients experiencing eclampsia and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome (HELLP syndrome) commonly exhibit symptoms such as headache, nausea and vomiting, which are also common adverse reactions attributed to uterotonics. The new-onset hypertension in the postpartum period may be attributed to postpartum pre-eclampsia, the administration of ergot derivatives for the prevention or treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and/or the prolonged administration of high doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postpartum analgesia [70, 71]. The excessive and prolonged utilization of oxytocin, appliance of magnesium sulfateIn and anaesthetics increases the risk of weak uterine contractions leading to PPH, while pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome are significantly associated with postpartum haemorrhage [72, 73]. Conditions such as placenta praevia, placental abruption and pre-eclampsia can lead to fetal distress due to diminished utero-placental blood flow, while inappropriate use of uterotonics and intrathecal administration of opioids for labour analgesia can induce tonic uterine contractions, which in turn can lead to fetal distress [74]. Another obvious side effect of misoprostol pertains to its induction of hyperthermia, with the degree of hyperthermia escalating proportionally to the administered misoprostol dosage. A randomized trial including patients with PPH showed that patients receiving 600 µg sublingual misoprostol and a standard contraction agent (contraction in 98% of patients) exhibited a threefold higher incidence of a temperature ≥ 38 °C (58% vs. 19%) compared to patients solely administered a standard contraction agent; the occurrence of a temperature ≥ 40 °C was 7% in the former group and < 1% in the latter [75]. Such cases necessitate a comprehensive evaluation encompassing medical history, physical examination, and laboratory assessments to discern potential pathological effects. The determination of the causal relationship between symptoms and medication will be adjudicated employing the WHO-UMC Causality Categories. Cases posing challenges in identification will be deliberated by a review panel, culminating in a consensus as the ultimate resolution [39].

Through the observation of doctors and nurses in the surgical setting, we ascertained that certain ADEs were unrecorded when the clinical manifestations were mild and did not necessitate specialized treatment. We therefore posit that it is imperative to augment the proficiency of medical personnel in recognizing and summarizing prevalent ADEs in the field of obstetrics.

Validity of triggers

48 cases of adverse reactions were detected based on the established obstetric triggers, whereas only 7 cases were reported by the SRS within the same timeframe, underscoring the heightened monitoring performance of the obstetric triggers compared to the SRS. This result aligns with the conclusions reached by Classen et al. [4], which revealed that “the detection rate of ADE by trigger tool was about 10 times higher than the previous two methods (SRS and patient safety indicator monitoring).” Through two rounds of the Delphi method in our current study, the established obstetric triggers manifested a PPV of 36.36%, surpassing the sensitivity and specificity of both the SRS and GTT, therefore substantiating the effectiveness of the obstetric triggers. However, among the 39 triggers examined, 17 failed to activate, yielding a negative activation rate of 43.59%. The PPV for 5 triggers was 100%, while the trigger frequency fluctuated between a minimum of one occurrence and a maximum of 11. Thus, given the low positive trigger rates associated with certain triggers, further revision is required.

Revision of the triggers

A new round of trigger revisions was executed based on the results of the medical records review.

Revision of untriggered trigger entries

With respect to the untriggered items, M1 “protamine given”, S4 “bleeding”, S8 “thromboembolic events”, and S14 “oligohydramnios or oligohydramnios” were not triggered. These four entries (M1, S4, S8, and S14) have been omitted in alignment with a drug used during the perinatal period and its trigger probability.

Revision of triggers reflecting a low PPV

To improve trigger accuracy, we conducted revisions for triggers exhibiting a low PPV. In the course of reviewing medical records, we observed that the trigger “intravenous injection of calcium gluconate” was triggered 15 times, principally in patients with eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, without any corresponding ADE noted. Studies have shown that Ca2+ stimulates neuromuscular excitement, promotes blood coagulation, and, when administered intravenously before cesarean section, diminished oxytocin levels, intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, thereby effectively prevented postpartum hemorrhage [76, 77]. The condition of this trigger entry should therefore be defined as “intravenous injection of calcium gluconate and Mg > 5 mmol/L.”

Among the enrolled patients, 115 underwent cesarean section; and those who did not experience flatulence in the initial two days post-surgery were administered keratin and/or lactulose to ameliorate constipation arising from the surgical procedure. As a result, only 2 ADEs were identified in the 36 triggers categorized under “laxative or stool softener given”. Subsequently, this category was revised as a trigger in “non-cesarean section patients who used laxatives or stool softeners”.

After a comprehensive validation process, the modified triggers contained a collective sum of 35 items, inclusive of 12 laboratory tests, 8 medications, 11 symptoms, and 4 outcomes.

Research limitations

There are still some limitations to the present study. First, one ADE eluded detection through obstetric triggers due to the inherent limitations of the GTT in identifying particular categories of ADEs [78]. GTT proves ineffectual in detecting the medication errors that are rarely documented in patient records. Second, the quality of the medical records greatly biased the results, as healthcare professionals may overlook ADEs deemed subjectively inconsequential. Moreover, the demographic composition of patients and medication habits within the specific hospital under study may have constrained the positive activation of triggers [33]. Consequently, the generalizability of the findings to other healthcare institutions may be limited, necessitating tailored modifications for individualized application in varied contexts. Forth, although the study team have received identical training through a medical record examination based on the IHI white paper, there exists variability among members in the identification and assessment of ADE and their respective severity ratings, which may be attributed to limitations inherent the investigator’s clinical experience and knowledge. Haukland EC hypothesized that awareness of the outcome and its severity, a phenomenon known as hindsight bias, may have led to an overestimation of both the quantity and severity of adverse events within the inpatient death sample [41]. Last, The IHI white paper recommended a review time of 20 min for each medical record. However, in cases where medical records were complicated due to comorbidities or prolonged hospital stays, the review duration needed to be extended, potentially uncovering additional ADEs in these specific medical records.

This study still employs the manual perusal of medical records, which is inefficient and retrospective. The automated triggers facilitate the comprehensive detection of all electronic medical records, as opposed to relying on limited data samples, which holds the potential to enhance the assurance of drug safety and expedite the timely enhancement of clinical outcomes for inpatients. With the updating of guidelines and the burgeoning body of research, a periodic review and updating of the triggers featured in this study become imperative. It is noteworthy that our study merely included the literature collected in PubMed and CNKI, which introduce a potential bias, thereby impacting the overall representativeness of the findings.

Conclusions

The obstetric triggers established in this study were proven to be more sensitive and specific in the active monitoring of ADE among obstetric inpatients compared with SRS and GTT, and provided a benchmark for ADE monitoring among obstetric inpatients within medical institutions.

Contribution to the field statement

In this study, the GTT was employed for the inaugural monitoring of ADEs in obstetric inpatients, marking a pioneering initiative both nationwide and worldwide. By investigating the occurrence of ADR in pregnant patients in Sichuan Province, the characteristics of ADR during pregnancy were comprehensively summarized, laying the foundation for an improvement in the local suitability of triggers. According to the physiologic characteristics of pregnant patients and specific obstetric drugs administered, triggers were then revised appropriately. We considered ADEs for the female reproductive system, fetus, and newborn, and established unique obstetric triggers. We postulated that the obstetric triggers were more suitable for the practical application of inpatients in a local department, and that the triggers could predict the occurrence of ADE more efficiently and accurately than other methods.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

ADE:

adverse drug event

ALP:

alkaline phosphatase

ALT:

alanine aminotransferase

APTT:

activated partial thromboplastin time

BG:

blood glucose

CTCAE:

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

DVT:

Deep venous thrombosis

FBG:

fasting blood glucose

FT:

Free Thyroxine

GTT:

Global Trigger Tool

HELLP syndrome:

hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome

IHI:

Institute for Healthcare Improvement

INR:

international normalized ratio

INRUD:

International Network for Rational Use of Drugs

NADRMS:

National Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System

NC:

neutrophil count

NSAIDs:

non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

PBG:

postprandial blood glucose

PE:

Pulmonary thromboembolism

PPH:

Postpartum hemorrhage

PPV:

positive predictive value

PT:

prothrombin time

SCr:

serum creatinine

SRS:

spontaneous reporting system

TPOAb:

thyroid peroxidase antibody

TSH:

thyroid stimulating hormone

TT:

Total Thyroxine

WBC:

white blood cells

WHO-UMC:

World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center

References

  1. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Servi D, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995;274(1):29–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gandhi TK, Seger DL, Bates DW. Identifying drug safety issues: from research to practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2000;12(1):69–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 [published correction appears in Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(6):1217]. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(4):581–589.

  5. FDA. Pharmacovigilance planning(PvP). Geneva; 2003.

  6. Sultana J, Cutroneo P, Trifirò G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J PharmacolPharmacother. 2013;4(Suppl 1):73–S77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alghamdy MS, Randhawa MA, Al-Wahhas MH, Al-Jumaan MA. Admissions for drug-related problems at the Emergency Department of a University Hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2015;22(1):44–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Zed PJ, Abu-Laban RB, Balen RM, et al. Incidence, severity and preventability of medication-related visits to the emergency department: a prospective study. CMAJ. 2008;178(12):1563–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Institute of Healthcare Improvement. Trigger Tool for measuring adverse drug events. 2004. [Available from http://www.ini.org/resrources/pages/tools/trigger tool for measuring adverse druge vents.aspx]. [Accessed 8 Aug 2014].

  11. Classen DC, Lloyd RC, Provost L. Development and evaluation of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2008;4(3).

  12. Nydert P, Unbeck M, Pukk Härenstam K, Norman M, Lindemalm S. Drug use and type of adverse drug events-identified by a trigger Tool in different units in a Swedish Pediatric Hospital. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2020;12:31–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. El Saghir A, Dimitriou G, Scholer M, Istampoulouoglou I, Heinrich P, Baumgartl K, Schwendimann R, Bassetti S, Leuppi-Taegtmeyer A. Development and implementation of an e-Trigger Tool for adverse drug events in a Swiss University Hospital. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2021;13:251–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Toscano Guzmán MD, Banqueri MG, Otero MJ, Fidalgo SS, Noguera IF, Guerrero MCP. Validating a trigger Tool for detecting adverse drug events in Elderly patients with multimorbidity (TRIGGER-CHRON). J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e976–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang N, Pan LY, Chen WY, Ji HH, Peng GQ, Tang ZW, Wang HL, Jia YT, Gong J. A risk-factor model for Antineoplastic Drug-Induced Serious adverse events in Cancer inpatients: a retrospective study based on the Global Trigger Tool and Machine Learning. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:896104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Valkonen V, Haatainen K, Saano S, Tiihonen M. Evaluation of global trigger tool as a medication safety tool for adverse drug event detection-a cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;79(5):617–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Magnéli M, Kelly-Pettersson P, Rogmark C, Gordon M, Sköldenberg O, Unbeck M. Timing of adverse events in patients undergoing acute and elective hip arthroplasty Surgery: a multicentre cohort study using the global trigger Tool. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6):e064794.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brandão MB, Hermann AP, Lima MN. Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety Tool for identifying safety incidents in pediatric patients. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2023;41:e2022076.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dillner P, Unbeck M, Norman M, Nydert P, Härenstam KP, Lindemalm S, Wackernagel D, Förberg U. Identifying neonatal adverse events in preterm and term infants using a paediatric trigger tool. Acta Paediatr. 2023;112(8):1670–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Griffey RT, Schneider RM, Todorov AA. Near-Miss events detected using the Emergency Department trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2023;19(2):59–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Skoogh A, Hall-Lord ML, Bååth C, Bojö AS. Adverse events in women giving birth in a labor ward: a retrospective record review study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1093.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Qiao J, Wang Y, Li X, Jiang F, Zhang Y, Ma J, Song Y, Ma J, Fu W, Pang R, Zhu Z, Zhang J, Qian X, Wang L, Wu J, Chang HM, Leung PCK, Mao M, Ma D, Guo Y, Qiu J, Liu L, Wang H, Norman RJ, Lawn J, Black RE, Ronsmans C, Patton G, Zhu J, Song L, Hesketh T. A Lancet Commission on 70 years of women’s reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in China. Lancet. 2021;397(10293):2497–536.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sutan R, Aminuddin NA, Mahdy ZA. Prevalence, maternal characteristics, and birth outcomes of preeclampsia: a cross-sectional study in a single tertiary healthcare center in greater Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. Front Public Health. 2022;10:973271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Intarut N, Mori R, Ganchimeg T, Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal Newborn Health Research Network. Advanced maternal age and pregnancy outcomes: a multicountry assessment. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 1):49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cunningham FG, et al. Williams Obstetrics. 24 ed. Diabetes Mellitus. 2014, New York: McGraw-Hill. 1358.

  26. Frederiksen MC. Physiologic changes in pregnancy and their effect on drug disposition. Semin Perinatol. 2001;25(3):120–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Balon M, Tessier S, Damase-Michel C, Cottin J, Lambert A, Thompson MA, Benevent J, Lacroix I. Adverse drug reactions in pregnant women: do they differ from those in non-pregnant women of childbearing age? Therapie. 2023 Mar-Apr;78(2):165–73.

  28. Shan W, Junfeng Y, Yuan B, et al. Retrospective Analysis of Gestational Adverse Drug Reactions from Sichuan Center for Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring from Nov. 2016 to Nov. 2017. China Pharmacy. 2019.30(15):2125–2129.

  29. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sisi Y, Xin F. Guidelines for the prevention of medication errors during pregnancy and lactation. Adverse Drug Reactions Journal. 2017;19(03):163–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. World Health Organization (WHO)-Uppsala Monitoring Centre. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Available from: http://www.who-umc.org/Graphics/24734.pdf.

  32. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 5. Published: November 27. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

  33. Zimlichman E, Gueta I, Daliyot D, Ziv A, Oberman B, Hochman O, Tamir O, Tal O, Loebstein R. Adverse drug event rate in Israeli hospitals: validation of an international trigger Tool and an international comparison study. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018;20(11):665–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hwang SH, Ah YM, Jun KH, Jung JW, Kang MG, Park HK, Lee EK, Park HK, Chung JE, Kim SH, Lee JY. Development and Validation of a Trigger Tool for Identifying Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 13;18(16):8572.

  35. de Almeida SM, Romualdo A, de Abreu Ferraresi A, Zelezoglo GR, Marra AR, Edmond MB. Use of a trigger tool to detect adverse drug reactions in an emergency department. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2017;18(1):71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Tchijevitch OA, Nielsen LP, Lisby M. Life-threatening and fatal adverse drug events in a Danish University Hospital. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(6):e562–7.

  37. Gohil JB, Desai CK, Panchal JR, Patel RR, Rathod GH. An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Indian J Pharmacol. 2022 Jan-Feb;54(1):19–23.

  38. Grossmann N, Gratwohl F, Musy SN, Nielen NM, Donzé J, Simon M. Describing adverse events in medical inpatients using the Global Trigger Tool. Swiss Med Wkly. 2019;149:w20149. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2019.20149. PMID: 31707720.

  39. Silva MDDG, Martins MAP, Viana LG, Passaglia LG, de Menezes RR, Oliveira JAQ, da Silva JLP, Ribeiro ALP. Evaluation of accuracy of IHI trigger Tool in identifying adverse drug events: a prospective observational study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(10):2252–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Karpov A, Parcero C, Mok CP, Panditha C, Yu E, Dempster L, Hohl. Performance of trigger tools in identifying adverse drug events in emergency department patients: a validation study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Oct;82(4):1048–57.

  41. Haukland EC, Mevik K, von Plessen C, Nieder C, Vonen B. Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(1):e000377.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Xu XD, Yuan YJ, Zhao LM, Li Y, Zhang HZ, Wu H. Adverse events at baseline in a Chinese General Hospital: a pilot study of the global trigger Tool. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(4):269–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Aikawa G, Ouchi A, Sakuramoto H, Ono C, Hatozaki C, Okamoto M, Hoshino T, Shimojo N, Inoue Y. Impact of adverse events on patient outcomes in a Japanese intensive care unit: a retrospective observational study. Nurs Open. 2021;8(6):3271–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Griffey RT, Schneider RM, Sharp BR, Vrablik MC, Adler L. Practical considerations in use of trigger Tool Methodology in the Emergency Department. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(8):e837–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Haixia Z, Jiaxing F, Jinchun L. Application of ADE trigger Tool in adverse drug event monitoring. Pharm Clin Res. 2016;24(05):p399–403.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(3):194–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kurutkan MN, Usta E, Orhan F, Simsekler MC. Application of the IHI Global Trigger Tool in measuring the adverse event rate in a Turkish healthcare setting. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2015;27(1):11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hwang JI, Chin HJ, Chang YS. Characteristics associated with the occurrence of adverse events: a retrospective medical record review using the global trigger Tool in a fully digitalized tertiary teaching hospital in Korea. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(1):27–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Xiaodi X, Hua W, Yijie Y, et al. Comparing the adverse drug events monitored by Retrospective global trigger Tool and spontaneous reporting methods. Chin J Pharmacoepidemiology. 2016;25(08):499–502.

    Google Scholar 

  50. von Plessen C, Kodal AM, Anhøj J. Experiences with global trigger tool reviews in five Danish hospitals: an implementation study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5):e001324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. YuanB, Junfeng Y, Shan D, et al. Application of global trigger tool in detecting adverse drug events. Chin J New Drugs Clin Remedies. 2015;34(09):726–31.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Carnevali L, Krug B, Amant F, et al. Performance of the adverse drug event trigger tool and the global trigger tool for identifying adverse drug events: experience in a Belgian hospital. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(11):1414–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hibbert P, Williams H. The use of a global trigger tool to inform quality and safety in Australian general practice: a pilot study. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43(10):723–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Härkänen M, Kervinen M, Ahonen J, Voutilainen A, Turunen H, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Patient-specific risk factors of adverse drug events in adult inpatients - evidence detected using the global trigger Tool method. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(3–4):582–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Menéndez Fraga MD, Cueva Álvarez MA, Franco Castellanos MR, et al. Cumplimiento Del Listado De verificación quirúrgica Y Los eventos quirúrgicos detectados mediante la herramienta del global trigger Tool [Compliance with the surgical safety checklist and surgical events detected by the global trigger Tool]. Rev Calid Asist. 2016;31(Suppl 1):20–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Guzmán-Ruiz O, Ruiz-López P, Gómez-Cámara A, Ramírez-Martín M. Detección de eventos adversos en pacientes adultos hospitalizados mediante El método Global TriggerTool [Detection of adverse events in hospitalized adult patients by using the global trigger Tool method]. Rev Calid Asist. 2015;30(4):166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kaafarani HM, Rosen AK, Nebeker JR, et al. Development of trigger tools for surveillance of adverse events in ambulatory Surgery. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):425–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pérez Zapata AI, Gutiérrez Samaniego M, Rodríguez Cuéllar E, Andrés Esteban EM. Gómez De La Cámara A, Ruiz López P. Detection of adverse events in general Surgery using the trigger Tool methodology. Cir Esp. 2015;93(2):84–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Najjar S, Hamdan M, Euwema MC, et al. The Global Trigger Tool shows that one out of seven patients suffers harm in Palestinian hospitals: challenges for launching a strategic safety plan. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25(6):640–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Unbeck M, Schildmeijer K, Henriksson P, et al. Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? An evaluation of the Harvard Medical Practice Study method and the global trigger Tool. Patient Saf Surg. 2013;7(1):10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Deilkås ET, Risberg MB, Haugen M, et al. Exploring similarities and differences in hospital adverse event rates between Norway and Sweden using global trigger Tool. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e012492.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mortaro A, Moretti F, Pascu D, et al. Adverse events detection through global trigger Togy: results from a 5-Year study in an Italian Hospital and opportunities to improve interrater reliability. J Patient Saf. 2021;17(6):451–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Härkänen M, Turunen H, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. Differences between methods of detecting medication errors: a Secondary Analysis of Medication Administration errors using Incident reports, the global trigger Tool Method, and observations. J Patient Saf. 2020;16(2):168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hoffmann-Völkl G, Kästenbauer T, Mück U, Zottl M, Huf W, Ettl B. Detektion unerwünschter Ereignisse mittels IHI global trigger Tool Im Kontext Der Einführung eines Risikomanagement-Systems: Eine Retrospektive Studie über einen Zeitraum Von 3 Jahren an Der Herz- Und Gefäßchirurgischen Abteilung eines Wiener Schwerpunktkrankenhauses [Detection of adverse events using IHI global trigger Tool during the adoption of a risk management system: a retrospective study over three years at a department for cardiovascular Surgery in Vienna]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018;131–132:38–45. German.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 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(5):1407–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Sam AT, Lian Jessica LL, Parasuraman S. A retrospective study on the incidences of adverse drug events and analysis of the contributing trigger factors. J Basic Clin Pharm. 2015;6(2):64–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Leveno KJ. Williams Manual of Pregnancy Complications. 23 ed. Science Press; 2018.

  68. Mevik K, Griffin FA, Hansen TE, Deilkås E, Vonen B. Is inter-rater reliability of global trigger Tool results altered when members of the review team are replaced? Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(4):492–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Boxun C, Yansheng Z, Yongheng L, et al. Design and application of active monitoring system for medical adverse events based on trigger mechanism[J]. China Digital Medicine. 2021;16(11).

  70. Goel A, Maski MR, Bajracharya S, et al. Epidemiology and mechanisms of De Novo and Persistent Hypertension in the PostpartumPeriod. Circulation. 2015;132:1726.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Black MH, Zhou H, Sacks DA, et al. Hypertensive disorders first identified in pregnancy increase risk for incident prehypertensionand Hypertension in the year after delivery. J Hypertens. 2016;34:728.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Linde LE, Ebbing C, Moster D, et al. Recurrence of postpartum Hemorrhage in relatives: a population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100:2278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sheiner E, Sarid L, Levy A, et al. Obstetric risk factors and outcome of pregnancies complicated with early postpartum Hemorrhage:a population-based study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;18:149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Clarke VT, Smiley RM, Finster M. Uterine hyperactivity after intrathecal injection of fentanyl for analgesia during labor: a causeof fetal bradycardia? Anesthesiology. 1994;81:1083.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Widmer M, Blum J, Hofmeyr GJ, et al. Misoprostol as an adjunct to standard uterotonics for treatment of post-partum haemorrhage: amulticentre, double-blind randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1808.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Changizi N, Rezaeizadeh G, Janani L, Shariat M, Habibelahi A. In depth analysis of the Leading Causes of Maternal Mortality due to Cesarean Section in Iran. J Family Reprod Health. 2017;11(1):1–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Kajendran J, Silva GR, Ranaraja SK. Effects of 5 IU oxytocin bolus and 20 IU oxytocin infusion compared to 5 IU oxytocin bolus and normal saline infusion in the control of blood loss during and after ante-partum lower segment caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Ceylon Med J. 2017;62(3):121–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Council of Europe. Creation of a better medication safety culture in Europe: building up safe medication practices. Council of Europe; 2006.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to their medical and pharmaceutical colleagues for providing meaningful advice on the establishment of the GTT and assisting in the collection of surveys.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFC2005500), the Sichuan Science and Technology Plan Project (2022NSFSC0818), Clinical Research and Transformation Project of Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital (No.2018LY09).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shan Wu, Qinan Yin, Liuyun Wu and Yue Wu share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

    Shan Wu, Qinan Yin, Liuyun Wu, Yue Wu, Junfeng Yan & Yuan Bian

  2. Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Shuangliu District, Chengdu, China

    Shan Wu

  3. Personalized Drug Therapy Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

    Qinan Yin, Liuyun Wu, Yue Wu, Junfeng Yan & Yuan Bian

  4. Chengdu First People’s Hospital, Chengdu, China

    Nan Yu

Authors
  1. Shan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qinan Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liuyun Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yue Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nan Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junfeng Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuan Bian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Shan Wu, Qinan Yin, and Yuan Bian; and the first draft of the manuscript was prepared by Shan Wu, Qinan Yin, and Liuyun Wu; the verification and updating of the manuscript were conducted by Nan Yu and Yue Wu; the funds came from Yuan Bian and Junfeng Yan. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Junfeng Yan or Yuan Bian.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The experimental protocol was established, according to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from individual or guardian participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, S., Yin, Q., Wu, L. et al. Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 72 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10449-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10449-z

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us