OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility (i.e., positive predictive value [PPV] and time requirement) of an adverse drug event (ADE) trigger tool in Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing facilities and to describe the most common types of potential ADEs detected with the trigger tool. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING/PATIENTS: Veterans residing in three VA nursing facilities between September 29, 2010, and October 29, 2010. MEASUREMENT: We used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement-endorsed nursing facility ADE trigger tool, modified to enhance its clinical relevance to detect potential ADEs. Electronic medical records were screened to identify residents with one or more abnormal laboratory values specified in the trigger tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A potential ADE was defined as the concurrent administration of medication that could cause the abnormal laboratory value. An overall PPV, or proportion of residents with an abnormal laboratory value who had a potential ADE, and average time required to complete each trigger tool assessment, were calculated. RESULTS: Among 321 veterans, 50.5% (n = 162) had at least one abnormal laboratory value contained in the trigger tool. Ninety-nine potential ADEs involving 146 medications were detected in 65 veterans. The overall PPV of the ADE trigger tool was 40.1% (65/162), and the average time to complete resident assessments was 8.8 (standard deviation ± 5.7) minutes. The most common potential ADEs were acute kidney injury (n = 30 residents), hypokalemia (n = 18), hypoglycemia (n = 13), and hyperkalemia (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: The modified nursing facility trigger tool was shown to be an effective and efficient method for detecting potential ADEs.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility (i.e., positive predictive value [PPV] and time requirement) of an adverse drug event (ADE) trigger tool in Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing facilities and to describe the most common types of potential ADEs detected with the trigger tool. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING/PATIENTS: Veterans residing in three VA nursing facilities between September 29, 2010, and October 29, 2010. MEASUREMENT: We used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement-endorsed nursing facility ADE trigger tool, modified to enhance its clinical relevance to detect potential ADEs. Electronic medical records were screened to identify residents with one or more abnormal laboratory values specified in the trigger tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A potential ADE was defined as the concurrent administration of medication that could cause the abnormal laboratory value. An overall PPV, or proportion of residents with an abnormal laboratory value who had a potential ADE, and average time required to complete each trigger tool assessment, were calculated. RESULTS: Among 321 veterans, 50.5% (n = 162) had at least one abnormal laboratory value contained in the trigger tool. Ninety-nine potential ADEs involving 146 medications were detected in 65 veterans. The overall PPV of the ADE trigger tool was 40.1% (65/162), and the average time to complete resident assessments was 8.8 (standard deviation ± 5.7) minutes. The most common potential ADEs were acute kidney injury (n = 30 residents), hypokalemia (n = 18), hypoglycemia (n = 13), and hyperkalemia (n = 10). CONCLUSIONS: The modified nursing facility trigger tool was shown to be an effective and efficient method for detecting potential ADEs.
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Paula Rochon; James Judge; Leslie R Harrold; Chaim M Bell; Monica Lee; Kathleen White; Jane LaPrino; Janet Erramuspe-Mainard; Martin DeFlorio; Linda Gavendo; Joann L Baril; George Reed; David W Bates Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Leslie R Harrold; Jeffrey Rothschild; Kristin Debellis; Andrew C Seger; Cynthia Cadoret; Leslie S Fish; Lawrence Garber; Michael Kelleher; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joseph T Hanlon; Sherrie L Aspinall; Todd P Semla; Steven D Weisbord; Linda F Fried; C Bernie Good; Michael J Fine; Roslyn A Stone; Mary Jo V Pugh; Michelle I Rossi; Steven M Handler Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sandra L Kane-Gill; Joseph T Hanlon; Michael J Fine; Subashan Perera; Colleen M Culley; Stephanie A Studenski; Dave A Nace; Richard D Boyce; Nicholas G Castle; Steven M Handler Journal: Consult Pharm Date: 2016-12-01
Authors: Steven M Handler; Pui Wen Cheung; Colleen M Culley; Subashan Perera; Sandra L Kane-Gill; John A Kellum; Zachary A Marcum Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Louis Wu; Eric J Thomas; Samuel N Forjuoh; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colleen M Culley; Subashan Perera; Zachary A Marcum; Sandra L Kane-Gill; Steven M Handler Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Maria Jose Otero; María Dolores Toscano Guzmán; Mercedes Galván-Banqueri; Jesus Martinez-Sotelo; María Dolores Santos-Rubio Journal: Eur J Hosp Pharm Date: 2020-05-08