A systematic review of the performance characteristics of clinical event monitor signals used to detect adverse drug events in the hospital setting

被引:61
作者
Handler, Steven M.
Altman, Richard L.
Perera, Subashan
Hanlon, Joseph T.
Studenski, Stephanie A.
Bost, James E.
Saul, Melissa I.
Fridsma, Douglas B.
机构
[1] VAPHS, Div Clin Geriatr, Dept Med, Sch Med, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[2] VAPHS, Dept Biomed Informat, Sch Med, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[3] VAPHS, Grad Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] VAPHS, Sch Pharm, Dept Pharm & Therapeut, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[5] VAPHS, Ctr Res Hlth Care, Dept Med, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[6] VAPHS, Geriatr Res Educ & Clin Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[7] Vet Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare Syst, Ctr Hlth Equ Res, Pittsburgh, PA USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
D O I
10.1197/jamia.M2369
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Objective: We conducted a systematic review of pharmacy and laboratory signals used by clinical event monitor systems to detect adverse drug events (ADEs) in adult hospitals. Design and Measurements: We searched the MEDLINE, CINHAL, and EMBASE databases for the years 19852006, and found 12 studies describing 36 unique ADE signals (10 medication levels, 19 laboratory values, and 7 antidotes). We were able to calculate positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 15 signals. Results: We found that PPVs ranged from 0.03 (95% Cl, 0.03-0.03) for hypokalemia, to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39-0.61) for supratherapeutic quinidine level. In general, antidotes (range = 0.09-0.11) had the lowest PPVs, followed by laboratory values (range = 0.03-0.27) and medication levels (range = 0.03-0.50). Conclusion: Data from this study should help clinical information system and computerized decision support producers develop or improve existing clinical event monitor systems to detect ADEs in their own hospitals by prioritizing those signals with the highest PPVs.
引用
收藏
页码:451 / 458
页数:8
相关论文
共 81 条
  • [21] Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation - Computerised monitoring versus stimulated spontaneous reporting
    Dormann, H
    Muth-Selbach, U
    Krebs, S
    Criegee-Rieck, M
    Tegeder, I
    Schneider, HT
    Hahn, EG
    Levy, M
    Brune, K
    Geisslinger, G
    [J]. DRUG SAFETY, 2000, 22 (02) : 161 - 168
  • [22] National estimates of medication use in nursing homes: Findings from the 1997 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the 1996 Medical Expenditure Survey
    Doshi, JA
    Shaffer, T
    Briesacher, BA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2005, 53 (03) : 438 - 443
  • [23] Evans R S, 1991, Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care, P23
  • [24] Evans R S, 1992, Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care, P437
  • [25] Fleiss J L, 1993, Stat Methods Med Res, V2, P121, DOI 10.1177/096228029300200202
  • [26] Identifying drug safety issues: from research to practice
    Gandhi, TK
    Seger, DL
    Bates, DW
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2000, 12 (01) : 69 - 76
  • [27] GOROLL AH, 2006, PRIMARY CARE MED OFF
  • [28] GUAY DRP, 2003, BROCKLEHURSTS TXB GE, P155
  • [29] The incidence of adverse drug events in two large academic long-term care facilities
    Gurwitz, JH
    Field, TS
    Judge, J
    Rochon, P
    Harrold, LR
    Cadoret, C
    Lee, M
    White, K
    LaPrino, J
    Erramuspe-Mainard, J
    DeFlorio, M
    Gavendo, L
    Auger, J
    Bates, DW
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 118 (03) : 251 - 258
  • [30] Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting
    Gurwitz, JH
    Field, TS
    Harrold, LR
    Rothschild, J
    Debellis, K
    Seger, AC
    Cadoret, C
    Garber, L
    Kelleher, M
    Bates, DW
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 289 (09): : 1107 - 1116