Literature DB >> 22673928

Evaluation of adverse drug reactions in medical intensive care units.

Sojin Park1, Yongwon In, Gee Young Suh, Kieho Sohn, Eunyoung Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patterns of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) were analysed, and signals for detecting ADRs were developed from the analysis.
METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted in MICU wards at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Seoul, Korea. The areas included one general MICU and one cancer centre MICU. Two pharmacists evaluated ADRs in terms of length of stay, causality, severity, preventability, types, related organs, and incidence. Differences in ADR perception rates between physicians and pharmacists were also evaluated. ADR cases detected through the evaluation were reviewed to develop specific alerting signals for ICU ADRs.
RESULTS: The study group included 346 patients admitted to the ICU over 4 months. The overall incidence of ADRs was 32%. ICU length of stay is closely related to ADRs (p = 0.014). Most ADR cases were mild, temporary, and harmful to the patient. Twenty percent of ADRs were preventable, and 74% were type A. Of the ADRs, 70% were noted by physicians; 80% required intervention. The most commonly implicated drug was amphotericin B, and the clinical presentation was a haematologic reaction. Data on the time required for pharmacists to identify ADRs indicated that they were not slower than physicians. Six signals for early detection of the ADRs were developed.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall ADR incidence in the MICU was about one-third, and the length of stay of the ADR group was longer than that of those without this experience. Automated signal generation was developed. It seemed to be a valuable tool for faster and more efficient patient management, and possibly prevention of ADRs. A future study should scientifically evaluate the clinical relevance of this tool.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22673928     DOI: 10.1007/s00228-012-1318-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   2.953


  27 in total

1.  Focusing on the preventability of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  G T Schumock; J P Thornton
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  1992-06

2.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.

Authors:  L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program.

Authors:  S C Hartwig; S D Denger; P J Schneider
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1991-12

Review 4.  Mini-series: II. clinical aspects. clinically relevant CYP450-mediated drug interactions in the ICU.

Authors:  Isabel Spriet; Wouter Meersseman; Jan de Hoon; Sandrina von Winckelmann; Alexander Wilmer; Ludo Willems
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-01-09       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Interdisciplinary patient care in the intensive care unit: focus on the pharmacist.

Authors:  Brian L Erstad; Curtis E Haas; Terence O'Keeffe; Cheryl A Hokula; Kathleen Parrinello; Andreas A Theodorou
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.705

6.  Adverse drug reaction monitoring: doing it the French way.

Authors:  N Moore; M Biour; G Paux; E Loupi; B Begaud; F Boismare; R J Royer
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-11-09       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  On-site pharmacists in the ED improve medical errors.

Authors:  Amy A Ernst; Steven J Weiss; Arthur Sullivan; Dusadee Sarangarm; Shannon Rankin; Martha Fees; Preeyaporn Sarangarm
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 2.469

8.  Frequency and cost of serious adverse drug reactions in a department of general medicine.

Authors:  N Moore; D Lecointre; C Noblet; M Mabille
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.335

9.  Adverse drug events in an intensive care unit of a university hospital.

Authors:  Adriano Max Moreira Reis; Silvia Helena De Bortoli Cassiani
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Implementation of pharmacy services in a telemedicine intensive care unit.

Authors:  Tracy M Meidl; Thomas W Woller; Arlene M Iglar; Dennis G Brierton
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 2.637

View more
  5 in total

1.  Mortality among patients due to adverse drug reactions that occur following hospitalisation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Parvati B Patel; Tejas K Patel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Evaluation of an automated surveillance system using trigger alerts to prevent adverse drug events in the intensive care unit and general ward.

Authors:  John P DiPoto; Mitchell S Buckley; Sandra L Kane-Gill
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  A clinical trial comparing physician prompting with an unprompted automated electronic checklist to reduce empirical antibiotic utilization.

Authors:  Curtis H Weiss; David Dibardino; Jason Rho; Nina Sung; Brett Collander; Richard G Wunderink
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  A comprehensive intervention for adverse drug reactions identification and reporting in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Authors:  Olga Morales Ríos; Luis Jasso Gutiérrez; Juan O Talavera; Martha María Téllez-Rojo; Víctor Olivar López; Juan Garduño Espinosa; Onofre Muñoz Hernández
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-02

5.  Differences between Drug-Induced and Contrast Media-Induced Adverse Reactions Based on Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions.

Authors:  JiHyeon Ryu; HeeYoung Lee; JinUk Suh; MyungSuk Yang; WonKu Kang; EunYoung Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.