Developing and Evaluating an Automated All-Cause Harm Trigger System Christine Sammer, DrPH, RN, Susanne Miller, RN, MS, Cason Jones, MLS, MHA, Antoinette Nelson, RN, BSN, MSHSA, Paul Garrett, MD, David Classen, MD, MS, David Stockwell, MD  Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety  Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 155-165 (April 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.01.004 Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 The daily work flow was used by the centralized nurse reviewers, hospital intervention coordinators, and hospital care team. The centralized nurse reviewer accessed the list of patients with positive triggers from the Risk Trigger® Monitoring (RTM) solution and followed the automated positive trigger in the patient's EHR to determine if a harm occurred. If no harm was found, the review ended. Harms or potential harms were identified, confirmed, and categorized upon patient discharge. Positive triggers, harms, and potential harms were viewable at the hospital level and communicated via the RTM platform to the hospital intervention coordinator. The hospital intervention coordinator communicated with the hospital care team, which provided intervention or action as appropriate. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2017 43, 155-165DOI: (10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.01.004) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 The automated risk trigger method captured significantly more hospital-acquired harms in all five harm categories than the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) manual method for similar time periods. For both methods, the data format complies with non-identification standard of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2017 43, 155-165DOI: (10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.01.004) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 The automated risk trigger method captured significantly more outside-acquired harms in all five harm categories than the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) manual method for similar time periods. For both methods, the data format complies with non-identification standard of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2017 43, 155-165DOI: (10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.01.004) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions