OBJECTIVE: Computerized monitors can effectively detect and potentially prevent adverse drug events (ADEs). Most monitors have been developed in large academic hospitals and are not readily usable in other settings. We assessed the ability of a commercial program to identify and prevent ADEs in a community hospital. DESIGN: and Measurement We prospectively evaluated the commercial application in a community-based hospital. We examined the frequency and types of alerts produced, how often they were associated with ADEs and potential ADEs, and the potential financial impact of monitoring for ADEs. RESULTS: Among 2,407 patients screened, the application generated 516 high priority alerts. We were able to review 266 alerts at the time they were generated and among these, 30 (11.3%) were considered substantially important to warrant contacting the physician caring for the patient. These 30 alerts were associated with 4 ADEs and 11 potential ADEs. In all 15 cases, the responsible physician was unaware of the event, leading to a change in clinical care in 14 cases. Overall, 23% of high priority alerts were associated with an ADE (95% confidence interval [CI] 12% to 34%) and another 15% were associated with a potential ADE (95% CI 6% to 24%). Active surveillance used approximately 1.5 hours of pharmacist time daily. CONCLUSIONS: A commercially available, computer-based ADE detection tool was effective at identifying ADEs. When used as part of an active surveillance program, it can have an impact on preventing or ameliorating ADEs.
OBJECTIVE: Computerized monitors can effectively detect and potentially prevent adverse drug events (ADEs). Most monitors have been developed in large academic hospitals and are not readily usable in other settings. We assessed the ability of a commercial program to identify and prevent ADEs in a community hospital. DESIGN: and Measurement We prospectively evaluated the commercial application in a community-based hospital. We examined the frequency and types of alerts produced, how often they were associated with ADEs and potential ADEs, and the potential financial impact of monitoring for ADEs. RESULTS: Among 2,407 patients screened, the application generated 516 high priority alerts. We were able to review 266 alerts at the time they were generated and among these, 30 (11.3%) were considered substantially important to warrant contacting the physician caring for the patient. These 30 alerts were associated with 4 ADEs and 11 potential ADEs. In all 15 cases, the responsible physician was unaware of the event, leading to a change in clinical care in 14 cases. Overall, 23% of high priority alerts were associated with an ADE (95% confidence interval [CI] 12% to 34%) and another 15% were associated with a potential ADE (95% CI 6% to 24%). Active surveillance used approximately 1.5 hours of pharmacist time daily. CONCLUSIONS: A commercially available, computer-based ADE detection tool was effective at identifying ADEs. When used as part of an active surveillance program, it can have an impact on preventing or ameliorating ADEs.
Authors: Ashish K Jha; Timothy G Ferris; Karen Donelan; Catherine DesRoches; Alexandra Shields; Sara Rosenbaum; David Blumenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: G M Chertow; J Lee; G J Kuperman; E Burdick; J Horsky; D L Seger; R Lee; A Mekala; J Song; A L Komaroff; D W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R A Raschke; B Gollihare; T A Wunderlich; J R Guidry; A I Leibowitz; J C Peirce; L Lemelson; M A Heisler; C Susong Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shobha Phansalkar; Heleen van der Sijs; Alisha D Tucker; Amrita A Desai; Douglas S Bell; Jonathan M Teich; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Taxiarchis Botsis; Michael D Nguyen; Emily Jane Woo; Marianthi Markatou; Robert Ball Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sara Ibáñez-Garcia; Carmen Rodriguez-Gonzalez; Vicente Escudero-Vilaplana; Maria Luisa Martin-Barbero; Belén Marzal-Alfaro; Jose Luis De la Rosa-Triviño; Irene Iglesias-Peinado; Ana Herranz-Alonso; Maria Sanjurjo Saez Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Sandra L Kane-Gill; Shyam Visweswaran; Melissa I Saul; An-Kwok Ian Wong; Louis E Penrod; Steven M Handler Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Alan J Forster; Alison Jennings; Claire Chow; Ciera Leeder; Carl van Walraven Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Allison B McCoy; Zachary L Cox; Erin B Neal; Lemuel R Waitman; Neeraja B Peterson; Gautam Bhave; Edward D Siew; Ioana Danciu; Julia B Lewis; Josh F Peterson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.342