A Multifaceted Approach to Safety: The Synergistic Detection of Adverse Drug Events in Adult Inpatients

Objectives: Adverse drug event (ADE) detection is a national priority. This study compares results from 2 ADE detection systems, voluntary reporting and computerized surveillance, at a large academic medical center. We analyze the medications most likely to cause harm, evaluate each systems' strengths, and propose a synergistic strategy for medication safety. Methods: Adult, inpatient ADEs from a 7-month period were evaluated and scored using a standardized methodology. ADEs per 1,000 patient days were calculated. Results: Surveillance detected 710 ADEs (6.93/1000 patient days), whereas voluntary reporting identified 205 ADEs (1.96/1000 patient days). For each major drug category (anticoagulants, hypoglycemia, narcotics and benzodiazepines, and miscellaneous), surveillance and voluntary reporting detected significantly different event rates (P < 0.001). Most surveillance events were hypoglycemia-related (68.2%, 4.72/1000 patient days), whereas most voluntarily-reported events were in the miscellaneous category (49.8%, 0.98/1000 patient days). The 2 systems detected statistically different ADE rates when stratified by nursing station. Of all unique ADEs (875), only 40 (5.6%) were common between the systems. Conclusions: This study analyzes the results of 2 ADE detection systems used in daily hospital operations as well as a health system scorecard. Our aggregate analysis underscores the synergistic nature of these approaches. Although surveillance provides quantitative data to estimate the actual rate of ADEs, voluntary reporting contributes qualitative evidence to prompt future surveillance rule development and identify areas of emerging risk. In isolation, each system paints a partial picture, but together, they amplify our understanding of patient safety.

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

[2]  K J Rothman,et al.  No Adjustments Are Needed for Multiple Comparisons , 1990, Epidemiology.

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

[4]  N. Laird,et al.  Incidence of Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events: Implications for Prevention , 1995 .

[5]  S D Small,et al.  Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. , 1995, JAMA.

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

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

[8]  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..

[9]  R. Raschke,et al.  A computer alert system to prevent injury from adverse drug events: development and evaluation in a community teaching hospital. , 1998, JAMA.

[10]  J D Horton,et al.  Warfarin therapy: evolving strategies in anticoagulation. , 1999, American family physician.

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

[12]  J. Callum,et al.  Reporting of near‐miss events for transfusion medicine: improving transfusion safety , 2001, Transfusion.

[13]  Sigal Kaplan,et al.  Reported adverse drug events in infants and children under 2 years of age. , 2002, Pediatrics.

[14]  D. Phillips,et al.  Morbidity and mortality from medical errors: an increasingly serious public health problem. , 2002, Annual review of public health.

[15]  George Hripcsak,et al.  Detecting adverse events for patient safety research: a review of current methodologies , 2003, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[16]  R. Resar,et al.  Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[17]  D. Classen,et al.  Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

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

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

[20]  John F Hurdle,et al.  High rates of adverse drug events in a highly computerized hospital. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Toward learning from patient safety reporting systems. , 2006, Journal of critical care.

[22]  G A Noskin,et al.  Active surveillance using electronic triggers to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

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

[24]  J. Devlin,et al.  Adverse Drug Event Reporting in Intensive Care Units: A Survey of Current Practices , 2006, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[25]  R. Resar,et al.  A trigger tool to identify adverse events in the intensive care unit. , 2006, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[26]  Samuel Z Goldhaber,et al.  Adverse drug events in hospitalized cardiac patients. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[27]  C. Snijders,et al.  Incidents and errors in neonatal intensive care: a review of the literature , 2007, Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[28]  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.