Literature DB >> 9267940

Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative study of intensive care and general care units.

D J Cullen1, B J Sweitzer, D W Bates, E Burdick, A Edmondson, L L Leape.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the frequency and preventability of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events in intensive care units (ICUs) and non-ICUs. To evaluate systems factors involving the individual caregivers, care unit teams, and patients involved in each adverse drug event by comparing ICUs with non-ICUs and medical ICUs with surgical ICUs.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Participants included all 4,031 adult admissions to a stratified, random sample of 11 medical and surgical units in two tertiary care hospitals over a 6-month period. Units included two medical and three surgical ICUs and four medical and two surgical general care units.
SETTING: Two tertiary care hospitals: Eleven medical and surgical units, including two medical and three surgical ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult admissions (n = 4,031).
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Rate of preventable adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events, length of stay, charges, costs, and measures of the unit's environment. Incidents were detected by stimulated self-report by nurses and pharmacists and by daily review of all charts by nurse investigators. Incidents were subsequently classified by two independent reviewers as to whether they represented adverse drug events or potential adverse drug events and as to severity and preventability. Those individuals involved in the preventable adverse drug event and potential adverse drug event underwent detailed interviews by peer case-investigators. The rate of preventable adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events in ICUs was 19 events per 1000 patient days, nearly twice that rate of non-ICUs (p <.01). The medical ICU rate (25 events per 1000 patient days) was significantly (p <.05) higher than the surgical ICU rate (14 events per 1000 patient days). When adjusted for the number of drugs used in the previous 24 hrs or ordered since admission, there were no differences in rates between ICUs and non-ICUs. ICU acuity, length of stay, and severity of the adverse drug event were greater in ICUs than non-ICUs, but there were no differences between medical ICU and surgical ICU patients. Structured interviews indicated almost no differences between ICUs and non-ICUs for many characteristics of the patient, patient care team, systems, and individual caregivers.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of preventable and potential adverse drug events was twice as high in ICUs compared with non-ICUs. However, when adjusted for the number of drugs ordered, there was no greater likelihood for preventable adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events to occur in ICUs than in non-ICUs. Preventable adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events occurred in units that functioned normally and involved caregivers who were working under reasonably normal circumstances, not at the extremes of workload, stress, or a difficult environment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9267940     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  140 in total

Review 1.  Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events.

Authors:  T J White; A Arakelian; J P Rho
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Performance of number-between g-type statistical control charts for monitoring adverse events.

Authors:  J C Benneyan
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2001-12

3.  Number-between g-type statistical quality control charts for monitoring adverse events.

Authors:  J C Benneyan
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2001-12

4.  Clinician use of a palmtop drug reference guide.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Rothschild; Thomas H Lee; Taran Bae; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 5.  Detecting adverse events using information technology.

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

6.  Evaluating the capability of information technology to prevent adverse drug events: a computer simulation approach.

Authors:  James G Anderson; Stephen J Jay; Marilyn Anderson; Thaddeus J Hunt
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Medication error reporting systems: a survey of canadian intensive care units.

Authors:  Kimberley Louie; Amanda Wilmer; Hubert Wong; Maja Grubisic; Najib Ayas; Peter Dodek
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2010-01

8.  Drug-drug interaction through molecular structure similarity analysis.

Authors:  Santiago Vilar; Rave Harpaz; Eugenio Uriarte; Lourdes Santana; Raul Rabadan; Carol Friedman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  [Is the ICU staff satisfied with the computerized physician order entry? A cross-sectional survey study].

Authors:  Renata Rego Lins Fumis; Eduardo Leite Vieira Costa; Paulo Sergio Martins; Vladimir Pizzo; Ivens Augusto Souza; Guilherme de Paula Pinto Schettino
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2014 Jan-Mar

10.  Consecutive nursing shifts and the risk of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients who are receiving intravenous insulin: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Najib T Ayas; Andrew T Jeklin; Harriet Tholin; Ann E Rogers; Peter Dodek; A J Hirsh-Allen; Monica Norena; Hubert Wong
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 4.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.