Article

Comparison of computerized surveillance and manual chart review for adverse events

Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Impact Factor: 3.93). 07/2011; 18(4):491-7. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000187
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To understand how the source of information affects different adverse event (AE) surveillance methods.
Retrospective analysis of inpatient adverse drug events (ADEs) and hospital-associated infections (HAIs) detected by either a computerized surveillance system (CSS) or manual chart review (MCR).
Descriptive analysis of events detected using the two methods by type of AE, type of information about the AE, and sources of the information.
CSS detected more HAIs than MCR (92% vs 34%); however, a similar number of ADEs was detected by both systems (52% vs 51%). The agreement between systems was greater for HAIs than ADEs (26% vs 3%). The CSS missed events that did not have information in coded format or that were described only in physician narratives. The MCR detected events missed by CSS using information in physician narratives. Discharge summaries were more likely to contain information about AEs than any other type of physician narrative, followed by emergency department reports for HAIs and general consult notes for ADEs. Some ADEs found by MCR were detected by CSS but not verified by a clinician.
Inability to distinguish between CSS false positives and suspected AEs for cases in which the clinician did not document their assessment in the CSS.
The effect that information source has on different surveillance methods depends on the type of AE. Integrating information from physician narratives with CSS using natural language processing would improve the detection of ADEs more than HAIs.

Full-text

Available from: James F Lloyd, Jul 03, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
117 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical research informatics is the rapidly evolving sub-discipline within biomedical informatics that focuses on developing new informatics theories, tools, and solutions to accelerate the full translational continuum: basic research to clinical trials (T1), clinical trials to academic health center practice (T2), diffusion and implementation to community practice (T3), and 'real world' outcomes (T4). We present a conceptual model based on an informatics-enabled clinical research workflow, integration across heterogeneous data sources, and core informatics tools and platforms. We use this conceptual model to highlight 18 new articles in the JAMIA special issue on clinical research informatics.
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 04/2012; 19(e1):e36-e42. DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000968 · 3.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Research supports medical record review using screening triggers as the optimal method to detect hospital adverse events (AE), yet the method is labour-intensive. METHOD: This study compared a traditional trigger tool with an enterprise data warehouse (EDW) based screening method to detect AEs. We created 51 automated queries based on 33 traditional triggers from prior research, and then applied them to 250 randomly selected medical patients hospitalised between 1 September 2009 and 31 August 2010. Two physicians each abstracted records from half the patients using a traditional trigger tool and then performed targeted abstractions for patients with positive EDW queries in the complementary half of the sample. A third physician confirmed presence of AEs and assessed preventability and severity. RESULTS: Traditional trigger tool and EDW based screening identified 54 (22%) and 53 (21%) patients with one or more AE. Overall, 140 (56%) patients had one or more positive EDW screens (total 366 positive screens). Of the 137 AEs detected by at least one method, 86 (63%) were detected by a traditional trigger tool, 97 (71%) by EDW based screening and 46 (34%) by both methods. Of the 11 total preventable AEs, 6 (55%) were detected by traditional trigger tool, 7 (64%) by EDW based screening and 2 (18%) by both methods. Of the 43 total serious AEs, 28 (65%) were detected by traditional trigger tool, 29 (67%) by EDW based screening and 14 (33%) by both. CONCLUSIONS: We found relatively poor agreement between traditional trigger tool and EDW based screening with only approximately a third of all AEs detected by both methods. A combination of complementary methods is the optimal approach to detecting AEs among hospitalised patients.
    BMJ quality & safety 10/2012; 22(2). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001102 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The measurement and examination of adverse events (AEs) that occur in children during hospital admissions is essential if we are to prevent, reduce or ameliorate the harm experienced. The UK Paediatric Trigger Tool (UKPTT) is a method of retrospective case note review that measures harm in hospitalised children. Objectives: To examine the harm resulting from the processes of healthcare in hospitalised children from centres providing data to the National Health Service (NHS) Institute UKPTT data portal, to understand the positive predictive values of triggers and to make recommendations for the further development of the trigger tool. Setting: 25 hospitals across the UK, including secondary, tertiary and quaternary paediatric centres. Participants: Randomly selected children who were admitted to hospital for longer than 24 h. Outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the rate of harm (the percentage of children experiencing one or more AEs during a hospital admission). Secondary measures were the severity of harm and performance of triggers. Results: Data from 3992 patient admissions were reviewed across the hospitals and submitted to the trigger tool portal from February 2008 to November 2011. At least one AE was reported for 567 (14.2%) patients, with 211 (5.3%) experiencing more than one event. There were 1001 AEs identified. Where harm occurred, it was considered temporary for 923 (92.2%) AEs; however, 43 (4.3%) AEs resulted in the need for life-sustaining interventions, 18 (1.8%) AEs led to permanent harm and for 17 children (1.7% of AEs) the AE was believed to have contributed to death. Conclusions: There is a significant, measurable level of harm experienced by children admitted to hospitals in the UK. While most of this harm is temporary, some of it is serious. The UKPTT offers organisations the means to measure and examine the AEs occurring in their hospital in order to reduce harm.
    BMJ Open 07/2014; 4(7):e005066. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005066 · 2.06 Impact Factor