Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 660Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 33-39

An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital

1 Department of Pharmacology, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
2 Department of Medicine, GCS Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jigar R Panchal
Department of Pharmacology, B.J. Medical College, Civil Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad - 380 016, Gujarat
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_30_19

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the trigger tool method (TTM) in detection, monitoring, and reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, India. Materials and Methods: A prospective, single-center, observational cum intervention study was conducted in two phases in the Department of Medicine over 15 months. In phase I, preliminary trigger tool list (PTTL) comprising 55 triggers was evaluated by pharmacologist in terms of detection of ADR in 400 patients and then, modified trigger tool list (MTTL) was prepared. In Phase II, the TTM using MTTL was compared with the spontaneous method of ADR monitoring after educational interventions in resident doctors of the two units of medicine department. Results: Of the 55 triggers in PTTL, 34 triggers were observed in 327 patients, of which 19 triggers lead to the detection of 66 ADRs. The rate of ADEs was 16.5%/100 patients. Positive predictive value (PPV) of each trigger ranged from 0% to 100%. PPV for drug trigger, laboratory trigger , and PT was 14.4%, 4.5%, and 23.3%, respectively. Overall, PPV of PTTL was 19.27%. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 21.66%, respectively. MTTL consists of these 19 triggers. In Phase II, resident doctors reported 16 ADRs, using spontaneous method and 23 ADRs using MTTL. The rate of ADEs per 100 patients was 1.63 and 2.13, respectively, with these methods. A total of 105 ADRs were reported during both phases. Conclusion: TTM is an effective method of ADR reporting if it is utilized by a trained person. This method could be used as add-on method to spontaneous method to improve ADR reporting.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded261    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal