Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Strengths and weaknesses of working with the Global Trigger Tool method for retrospective record review: focus group interviews with team members
  1. Kristina Schildmeijer1,
  2. Lena Nilsson2,
  3. Joep Perk1,
  4. Kristofer Årestedt1,3,4,
  5. Gunilla Nilsson1
  1. 1Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, School of Health and Caring Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden
  2. 2Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Linköping University, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden
  3. 3Division of Nursing Science, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  4. 4Palliative Research Centre, Ersta Sköndal University College and Ersta hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kristina Schildmeijer; kristina.schildmeijer{at}lnu.se

Abstract

Objectives The aim was to describe the strengths and weaknesses, from team member perspectives, of working with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) method of retrospective record review to identify adverse events causing patient harm.

Design A qualitative, descriptive approach with focus group interviews using content analysis.

Setting 5 Swedish hospitals in 2011.

Participants 5 GTT teams, with 5 physicians and 11 registered nurses.

Intervention 5 focus group interviews were carried out with the five teams. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim.

Results 8 categories emerged relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the GTT method. The categories found were: Usefulness of the GTT, Application of the GTT, Triggers, Preventability of harm, Team composition, Team tasks, Team members’ knowledge development and Documentation. Gradually, changes in the methodology were made by the teams, for example, the teams reported how the registered nurses divided up the charts into two sets, each being read respectively. The teams described the method as important and well functioning. Not only the most important, but also the most difficult, was the task of bringing the results back to the clinic. The teams found it easier to discuss findings at their own clinics.

Conclusions The GTT method functions well for identifying adverse events and is strengthened by its adaptability to different specialties. However, small, gradual methodological changes together with continuingly developed expertise and adaption to looking at harm from a patient's perspective may contribute to large differences in assessment over time.

  • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.