Efficacy of Trigger Tool in Identification of Suspected ADR in Secondary Hospital in Cape Verde
|Carla Djamila Reis*, Calida Etzana Veiga and Jailson Jesus Martins|
|Agência de Supervisão e Supervisão de Produtos Farmacêuticos e Alimentares (ARFA), Praia, Cape Verde|
|Corresponding Author :||Carla Djamila Reis
Master in Pharmaceutical Regulation
Agência de Regulação e Supervisão
de Produtos Farmacêuticos e Alimentares (ARFA)
Praia, Cape Verde
Tel: 238 262 64 10
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received October 26, 2015; Accepted November 20, 2015; Published November 27, 2015|
|Citation: Reis CD, Veiga CE, Martins JJ (2015) Efficacy of Trigger Tool in Identification of Suspected ADR in Secondary Hospital in Cape Verde. J Pharmacovigil 3:184. doi:10.4172/2329-6887.1000184|
|Copyright: © 2015 Reis CD, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
|Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google|
Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a major health and economic problem. There is no information regarding incidence of ADEs in Cabo Verde and trigger tools are an efficient active data collection method.
Objective: To identify efficacy of the trigger tool in identification of suspected ADRs.
Method: The Global Trigger Tool (GTT) developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) was used for a retrospective review of medical records. The ADE trigger tool included 21 triggers. 383 records were randomly selected, 190 in a first period and 194 in second period. Hospitalization for less than 48h, time spent in intensive care unit and lack of drug administration records was excluded.
Results: 287 triggers and 182 ADEs were found. Medical records with at least one trigger were 67.7% and 42.7%, respectively. In the same periods, 28.4% and 19.6% of total patients presented at least one ADE but it was 50% and 67.9% when calculating for the records with a trigger. In both periods, most common and robust trigger was nurse description. The least robust were abrupt medication stop and use of antiemetic drug.
Conclusion: The trigger tool had a good performance detecting ADE. The GTT is not feasible as routine PV method but an option to complement spontaneous notification. Further studies are needed using prospective method and extended period.