Article

Signal and noise: applying a laboratory trigger tool to identify adverse drug events among primary care patients.

Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA.
BMJ quality & safety (Impact Factor: 3.28). 05/2012; 21(8):670-5. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000643
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The extent of outpatient adverse drug events (ADEs) remains unclear. Trigger tools are used as a screening method to identify care episodes that may be ADEs, but their value in a population with high chronic-illness burden remains unclear.
The authors used six abnormal laboratory triggers for detecting ADEs among adults in outpatient care. Eligible patients were included if they were >18 years, sought primary or urgent care between November 2008 and November 2009 and were prescribed at least one medication. The authors then used the clinical / administrative database to identity patients with these triggers. Two physicians conducted in-depth chart review of any medical records with identified triggers.
The authors reviewed 1342 triggers representing 622 unique episodes among 516 patients. The trigger tool identified 91 (15%) ADEs. Of the 91 ADEs included in the analysis, 49 (54%) occurred during medication monitoring, 41 (45%) during patient self-administration, and one could not be determined. 96% of abnormal international normalised ratio triggers were ADEs, followed by 12% of abnormal blood urea nitrogen triggers, 9% of abnormal alanine aminotransferase triggers, 8% of abnormal serum creatinine triggers and 3% of aspartate aminotransferase triggers.
The findings imply that other tools such as text triggers or more complex automated screening rules, which combine data hierarchically are needed to effectively screen for ADEs in chronically ill adults seen in primary care.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
100 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the clinical effect of medication monitoring using the West Wales Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Profile for Respiratory Medicine. Single-site parallel-arm pragmatic trial using stratified randomisation. Nurse-led respiratory outpatient clinic in general hospital in South Wales. 54 patients with chronic respiratory disease receiving bronchodilators, corticosteroids or leukotriene receptor antagonists. Following initial observation of usual nursing care, we allocated participants at random to receive at follow up: either the West Wales ADR Profile for Respiratory Medicine in addition to usual care ('intervention arm' with 26 participants); or usual care alone ('control arm' with 28 participants). Problems reported and actions taken. We followed up all randomised participants, and analysed data in accordance with treatment allocated. The increase in numbers of problems per participant identified at follow up was significantly higher in the intervention arm, where the median increase was 20.5 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 13-26], while that in the control arm was -1 [-3 to +2] [Mann-Whitney U test: z = 6.28, p<0.001]. The increase in numbers of actions per participant taken at follow up was also significantly higher in the intervention arm, where the median increase was 2.5 [1]-[4] while that in the control arm was 0 [-1.75 to +1] [Mann-Whitney U test: z = 4.40, p<0.001]. When added to usual nursing care, the West Wales ADR Profile identified more problems and prompted more nursing actions. Our ADR Profile warrants further investigation as a strategy to optimise medication management. Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN10386209.
    PLoS ONE 05/2014; 9(5):e96682. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Little is known about adverse events (AEs) in pediatric patients. Record review is a common methodology for identifying AEs, but in pediatrics the record review tools generally have limited focus. The aim of the present study was to develop a broadly applicable record review tool to identify AEs in pediatric inpatients.Methods Using a broad literature review and expert opinion with a modified Delphi process, a pediatric trigger tool with 88 triggers, definitions, and descriptions including AE preventability decision support was developed and tested in a random sample of 600 hospitalized pediatric patients admitted in 2010 to a single university children¿s hospital. Four registered nurse-physician teams performed complete two-stage retrospective reviews of 150 records each from either neonatal, surgical/orthopedic, medicine, or emergency medicine units.ResultsRegistered nurse review identified 296 of 600 records with triggers indicating potential AEs. Records (n¿=¿121) with only false positive triggers not indicating any potential AEs were not forwarded to the next review stage. On subsequent physician review, 204 (34.0%) of patients were found to have had 563 AEs, range 1¿27 AEs/patient. A total of 442 preventable AEs were found in 161 patients (26.8%), range 1¿22. Overall, triggers were found 3,598 times in 417 (69.5%) records, with a mean of 6 (median 1, range 0¿176) triggers per patient. The overall positive predictive value of the triggers was 22.9%, (range 0.0-100.0%). The final pediatric trigger tool, developed with a second Delphi round, required 29 triggers.ConclusionsAEs are common in pediatric patients and most are preventable. The main contributions of this study are to further develop and adapt trigger definitions, including AE preventability decision support, to introduce new triggers in pediatric care, as well as to apply pediatric triggers in different clinical specialties. Our findings resulted in a national pediatric trigger tool, and might also be adapted internationally. The pediatric trigger tool can help healthcare organizations to measure and analyze the AEs occurring in hospitalized children in order to improve patient safety.
    BMC Health Services Research 12/2014; 14(1):655. · 1.66 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from