Computerized surveillance of opioid-related adverse drug events in perioperative care: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundGiven the complexity of surgical care, perioperative patients are at high risk of opioid-related adverse drug events. Existing methods of detection, such as trigger tools and manual chart review, are time-intensive which makes sustainability challenging. Using strategic rule design, computerized surveillance may be an efficient, pharmacist-driven model for event detection that leverages existing staff resources.MethodsComputerized adverse drug event surveillance uses a logic-based rules engine to identify potential adverse drug events or evolving unsafe clinical conditions. We extended an inpatient rule (administration of naloxone) to detect opioid-related oversedation and respiratory depression to perioperative care at a large academic medical center. Our primary endpoint was the adverse drug event rate. For all patients with a naloxone alert, manual chart review was performed by a perioperative clinical pharmacist to assess patient harm. In patients with confirmed oversedation, other patient safety event databases were queried to determine if they could detect duplicate, prior, or subsequent opioid-related events.ResultsWe identified 419 cases of perioperative naloxone administration. Of these, 101 were given postoperatively and 69 were confirmed as adverse drug events after chart review yielding a rate of 1.89 adverse drug events/1000 surgical encounters across both the inpatient and ambulatory settings. Our ability to detect inpatient opioid adverse drug events increased 22.7% by expanding surveillance into perioperative care. Analysis of historical surveillance data as well as a voluntary reporting database revealed that 11 of our perioperative patients had prior or subsequent harmful oversedation. Nine of these cases received intraoperative naloxone, and 2 had received naloxone in the post-anesthesia care unit. Pharmacist effort was approximately 3 hours per week to evaluate naloxone alerts and confirm adverse drug events.ConclusionA small investment of resources into a pharmacist-driven surveillance model gave great gains in organizational adverse drug event detection. The patients who experienced multiple events are particularly relevant to future studies seeking risk factors for opioid induced respiratory depression. Computerized surveillance is an efficient, impactful, and sustainable model for ongoing capture and analysis of these rare, but potentially serious events.

[1]  P. Barach,et al.  Clarifying Adverse Drug Events: A Clinician's Guide to Terminology, Documentation, and Reporting , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  David W. Bates,et al.  Research Paper: Using Computerized Data to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Outpatients , 2001, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[3]  Matthew H Samore,et al.  Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events in Surgical Hospitalizations: Impact on Costs and Length of Stay , 2007, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[4]  S. Schroeder,et al.  How Many Hours Is Enough? An Old Profession Meets a New Generation , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  R S Evans,et al.  Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients* , 1991, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[6]  Asif Ahmad,et al.  Implementation of a System for Computerized Adverse Drug Event Surveillance and Intervention at an Academic Medical Center , 2006 .

[7]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Research Paper: Identifying Adverse Drug Events: Development of a Computer-based Monitor and Comparison with Chart Review and Stimulated Voluntary Report , 1998, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[8]  Sonia Jain,et al.  A Facilitated Survey Instrument Captures Significantly More Anesthesia Events Than Does Traditional Voluntary Event Reporting , 2007, Anesthesiology.

[9]  Kaveh G Shojania,et al.  The frustrating case of incident-reporting systems , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[10]  B. Erstad,et al.  Cost implications of and potential adverse events prevented by interventions of a critical care pharmacist. , 2007, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[11]  David W. Bates,et al.  The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group , 1997 .

[12]  Steven Meisel,et al.  Case study: Reducing narcotic oversedation across an integrated health system. , 2007, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[13]  D. Malone,et al.  Accuracy of adverse-drug-event reports collected using an automated dispensing system. , 2005, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[14]  Monica M. Horvath,et al.  Reevaluating the Safety Profile of Pediatrics: A Comparison of Computerized Adverse Drug Event Surveillance and Voluntary Reporting in the Pediatric Environment , 2008, Pediatrics.

[15]  D. Bates,et al.  Improving safety with information technology. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  D. Bates,et al.  The Costs of Adverse Drug Events in Hospitalized Patients , 1997 .

[17]  S D Small,et al.  The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. , 1998, JAMA.

[18]  D. Greenblatt,et al.  A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions , 1981, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[19]  D. Bates,et al.  Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. , 1999, JAMA.

[20]  D. Classen,et al.  Detection of adverse events in surgical patients using the Trigger Tool approach , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[21]  T. Speroff,et al.  Assessment of adverse drug events among patients in a tertiary care medical center. , 2006, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[22]  T. Brennan,et al.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.