Key result
Global Trigger Tool identifies ~173-fold more hemovigilance operational errors than voluntary reporting.
Why the study?
Errors in blood transfusion processes can be life-threatening, and the accuracy of voluntary error reporting compared to the Global Trigger Tool for identifying operational errors was unclear.
Does the Global Trigger Tool identify more operational errors in blood transfusion compared to voluntary reporting?
Observational (n=88)
No
Does the Global Trigger Tool identify more operational errors in blood transfusion compared to voluntary reporting?
Absolute Event Rate: 346% vs 2%
The Global Trigger Tool is significantly more effective at identifying operational errors in blood transfusion than voluntary reporting.
May improve hemovigilance error detection over voluntary reporting; leaves open validation and outcome impact in prospective studies.
Background and ObjectivesTransfusion of blood and its products is one of the necessary and life-saving interventions for patients, and errors in any of its steps can be life-threatening.The aim of this study was to identify operational errors according to the voluntary reported errors compared to the guidelines of the Global Trigger Tool. Materials and MethodsThe study is of a descriptive-analytical and applied type and was conducted retrospectively at one of the Hospital in Tehran on 88 cases with a history of blood transfusion and its products with a checklist.Comparison of the average number of errors by section was done using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test as well as chi-square analysis using SPSS22 software.A significant level p value <0.05 was considered. ResultsFrom the 88 cases, 346 errors were obtained from the checklist, which was much higher compared to 2 cases of voluntarily reported errors.The reported error was unique to category B and C, in which the accident related to blood transfusion and its products was not reported. ConclusionsIdentification of errors using the global clue tool was significantly higher than voluntary reporting of errors, indicating that it is a more accurate tool for identifying adverse events.The use of this tool and planning and preventive measures can improve the safety of patients and improve the quality of care in hospitals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mojahed et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Blood Transfusion (n=88). Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for error identification vs. Voluntary error reporting system was evaluated on Number of identified operational errors in the hemovigilance system. The Global Trigger Tool identified 346 operational errors in the hemovigilance system across 88 cases, compared to only 2 errors captured by the traditional voluntary reporting system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: