Uncertain added value of Global Trigger Tool for monitoring of patient safety in cancer care.

Abstract

Introduction: Monitoring patient safety is a challenging task. The lack of a golden standard has contributed to the recommendation and introduction of several methods. In 2000 the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR) was established to monitor the clinical management of lung cancer. In 2008 the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) was recommended in Denmark as a tool for the monitoring of patient safety. Ideally, the recommendation of a new tool should be preceded by a critical assessment of its added value.

Material and methods: Data on complications related to lung cancer surgery from the Department of Cardiothoragic Surgery at Odense University Hospital were collected using the DLCR and the GTT in 2008. The capacity of these two methods to identify complications is compared and discussed.

Results: A total of 59 complications were registered in the DLCR, while 58 complications were registered using the GTT. The two methods were equally good at identifying complications, but the DLCR seemed to be borderline significantly better at detecting arrhythmia, while the GTT was significantly better at detecting "other events".

Conclusion: Nearly half of the adverse events identified with the GTT were complications which were also registered by type in the DLCR. The two methods were almost equally good at identifying specific types of complications, but the GTT identified more "other events". The majority of these events were well-known to clinicians. The comparison illustrates why the implementation of new methods should be preceded by critical assessment. In this case, it is crucial to assess whether the current method should be modified by the addition of more patient safety indicators rather than by introducing a new method that partly duplicates existing data.