OBJECTIVE: Adverse events are poor health outcomes caused by medical care. Measuring them is necessary for quality improvements, but current detection methods are inadequate. We performed this study to validate a previously derived method of adverse event detection using term searching in physician-dictated discharge summaries. DESIGN: This was a retrospective, chart review study of a random sample of 245 adult medicine and surgery patients admitted to a multicampus academic medical center in 2002. MEASUREMENTS: The authors used a commercially available search engine to scan discharge summaries for the presence of 104 terms that potentially indicate an adverse event. Summaries with any of these terms were reviewed by a physician to determine the term's context. Screen-positive summaries had a term that was contextually indicative of an adverse event. We used a two-stage chart review as the gold standard to determine the true presence or absence of an adverse event. RESULTS: The average patient age was 62 years (standard deviation 18.6) and 55% were admitted to a medical service. By gold standard criteria, 48 of 245 patients had an adverse event. Term searching classified 27 cases with an adverse event, with 11 true positives; 218 cases were classified as not having an adverse event, with 181 true negatives. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.11-0.35), 0.92 (95% CI=0.88-0.96), 0.41 (95% CI=0.25-0.59), and 0.83 (95% CI=95% 0.77-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the sensitivity of the method is low, its high specificity means that the method could be used to replace expensive manual chart reviews by nurses.
OBJECTIVE: Adverse events are poor health outcomes caused by medical care. Measuring them is necessary for quality improvements, but current detection methods are inadequate. We performed this study to validate a previously derived method of adverse event detection using term searching in physician-dictated discharge summaries. DESIGN: This was a retrospective, chart review study of a random sample of 245 adult medicine and surgery patients admitted to a multicampus academic medical center in 2002. MEASUREMENTS: The authors used a commercially available search engine to scan discharge summaries for the presence of 104 terms that potentially indicate an adverse event. Summaries with any of these terms were reviewed by a physician to determine the term's context. Screen-positive summaries had a term that was contextually indicative of an adverse event. We used a two-stage chart review as the gold standard to determine the true presence or absence of an adverse event. RESULTS: The average patient age was 62 years (standard deviation 18.6) and 55% were admitted to a medical service. By gold standard criteria, 48 of 245 patients had an adverse event. Term searching classified 27 cases with an adverse event, with 11 true positives; 218 cases were classified as not having an adverse event, with 181 true negatives. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.11-0.35), 0.92 (95% CI=0.88-0.96), 0.41 (95% CI=0.25-0.59), and 0.83 (95% CI=95% 0.77-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the sensitivity of the method is low, its high specificity means that the method could be used to replace expensive manual chart reviews by nurses.
Authors: Harvey J Murff; Alan J Forster; Josh F Peterson; Julie M Fiskio; Heather L Heiman; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: David W Bates; R Scott Evans; Harvey Murff; Peter D Stetson; Lisa Pizziferri; George Hripcsak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: A K Jha; G J Kuperman; J M Teich; L Leape; B Shea; E Rittenberg; E Burdick; D L Seger; M Vander Vliet; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: S N Weingart; L I Iezzoni; R B Davis; R H Palmer; M Cahalane; M B Hamel; K Mukamal; R S Phillips; D T Davies; N J Banks Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alan J Forster; Tim R Asmis; Heather D Clark; Ghiath Al Saied; Catherine C Code; Sharon C Caughey; Kevin Baker; James Watters; Jim Worthington; Carl van Walraven Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-04-13 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: G Ross Baker; Peter G Norton; Virginia Flintoft; Régis Blais; Adalsteinn Brown; Jafna Cox; Ed Etchells; William A Ghali; Philip Hébert; Sumit R Majumdar; Maeve O'Beirne; Luz Palacios-Derflingher; Robert J Reid; Sam Sheps; Robyn Tamblyn Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-05-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sandra L Kane-Gill; Adam M MacLasco; Melissa I Saul; Tiffany R Politz Smith; Megan A Kloet; Catherine Kim; Ananth M Anthes; Pamela L Smithburger; Amy L Seybert Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: A Visser; A E Slaman; C M van Leijen; D J Gouma; J C Goslings; D T Ubbink Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Lisa A Calder; Trevor Arnason; Christian Vaillancourt; Jeffrey J Perry; Ian G Stiell; Alan J Forster Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Barbara Okoniewska; Maria Jose Santana; Ward Flemons; Maeve O'Beirne; Deborah White; Wrochelle Ocampo; William A Ghali; Alan J Forster Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.655