Rosemary J Call1, Jonathan D Burlison1, Jennifer J Robertson1, Jeffrey R Scott1, Donald K Baker2, Michael G Rossi3, Scott C Howard4, James M Hoffman5. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. 2. Department of Information Sciences, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. 4. Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. 5. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN. Electronic address: james.hoffman@stjude.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of a trigger tool for the detection of adverse drug events (ADE) in a pediatric hospital specializing in oncology, hematology, and other catastrophic diseases. STUDY DESIGN: A medication-based trigger tool package analyzed electronic health records from February 2009 to February 2013. Chart review determined whether an ADE precipitated the trigger. Severity was assigned to ADEs, and preventability was assessed. Preventable ADEs were compared with the hospital's electronic voluntary event reporting system to identify whether these ADEs had been previously identified. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of the entire trigger tool and individual triggers were calculated to assess their accuracy to detect ADEs. RESULTS: Trigger occurrences (n = 706) were detected in 390 patients from 6 medication triggers, 33 of which were ADEs (overall PPV = 16%). Hyaluronidase had the greatest PPV (60%). Most ADEs were category E harm (temporary harm) per the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention index. One event was category H harm (intervention to sustain life). Naloxone was associated with the most grade 4 ADEs per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Twenty-one (64%) ADEs were preventable, 3 of which were submitted via the voluntary reporting system. CONCLUSION: Most of the medication-based triggers yielded low PPVs. Refining the triggers based on patients' characteristics and medication usage patterns could increase the PPVs and make them more useful for quality improvement. To efficiently detect ADEs, triggers must be revised to reflect specialized pediatric patient populations such as hematology and oncology patients.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of a trigger tool for the detection of adverse drug events (ADE) in a pediatric hospital specializing in oncology, hematology, and other catastrophic diseases. STUDY DESIGN: A medication-based trigger tool package analyzed electronic health records from February 2009 to February 2013. Chart review determined whether an ADE precipitated the trigger. Severity was assigned to ADEs, and preventability was assessed. Preventable ADEs were compared with the hospital's electronic voluntary event reporting system to identify whether these ADEs had been previously identified. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of the entire trigger tool and individual triggers were calculated to assess their accuracy to detect ADEs. RESULTS: Trigger occurrences (n = 706) were detected in 390 patients from 6 medication triggers, 33 of which were ADEs (overall PPV = 16%). Hyaluronidase had the greatest PPV (60%). Most ADEs were category E harm (temporary harm) per the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention index. One event was category H harm (intervention to sustain life). Naloxone was associated with the most grade 4 ADEs per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Twenty-one (64%) ADEs were preventable, 3 of which were submitted via the voluntary reporting system. CONCLUSION: Most of the medication-based triggers yielded low PPVs. Refining the triggers based on patients' characteristics and medication usage patterns could increase the PPVs and make them more useful for quality improvement. To efficiently detect ADEs, triggers must be revised to reflect specialized pediatric patient populations such as hematology and oncology patients.
Authors: Carla Meyer-Massetti; Christine M Cheng; David L B Schwappach; Lynn Paulsen; Brigid Ide; Christoph R Meier; B Joseph Guglielmo Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: David C Classen; Roger Resar; Frances Griffin; Frank Federico; Terri Frankel; Nancy Kimmel; John C Whittington; Allan Frankel; Andrew Seger; Brent C James Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Eric S Kirkendall; Elizabeth Kloppenborg; James Papp; Denise White; Carol Frese; Deborah Hacker; Pamela J Schoettker; Stephen Muething; Uma Kotagal Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Aleksandar Kovacevic; Azad Dehghan; Michele Filannino; John A Keane; Goran Nenadic Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Anne G Matlow; Catherine M G Cronin; Virginia Flintoft; Cheri Nijssen-Jordan; Mark Fleming; Barbara Brady-Fryer; Mary-Ann Hiltz; Elaine Orrbine; G Ross Baker Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: M F Walji; A Yansane; N B Hebballi; A M Ibarra-Noriega; K K Kookal; S Tungare; K Kent; R McPharlin; V Delattre; E Obadan-Udoh; O Tokede; J White; E Kalenderian Journal: JDR Clin Trans Res Date: 2019-12-10
Authors: Sarah N Musy; Dietmar Ausserhofer; René Schwendimann; Hans Ulrich Rothen; Marie-Madlen Jeitziner; Anne Ws Rutjes; Michael Simon Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Saul N Weingart; Jason Nelson; Benjamin Koethe; Omar Yaghi; Stephan Dunning; Albert Feldman; David Kent; Allison Lipitz-Snyderman Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Edmundo Vázquez-Cornejo; Olga Morales-Ríos; Gabriela Hernández-Pliego; Carlo Cicero-Oneto; Juan Garduño-Espinosa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240