Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of an Automated Surveillance System Using Trigger Alerts to Prevent Adverse Drug Events in the Intensive Care Unit and General Ward

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Adverse events in the intensive care unit (ICU) may be associated with several possible causes, so determining a drug-related causal assessment is more challenging than in general ward patients. Therefore, the hypothesis was that automated trigger alerts may perform differently in various patient care settings. The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency and type of clinically significant automated trigger alerts in critically ill and general ward patients as well as evaluate the performance of alerts for drug-related hazardous conditions (DRHCs).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult ICU and general ward patients at three institutions (academic, community, and rural hospital) in a health system. Automated trigger alerts generated during two nonconsecutive months were obtained from a centralized database. Pharmacist responses to alerts and prescriber response to recommendations were evaluated for all alerts. A clinical significant event was defined as an actionable intervention requiring drug therapy changes that the pharmacist determined to be appropriate for patient safety and where the physician accepted the pharmacist’s recommendation. The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each trigger alert considered a DRHC (i.e., abnormal laboratory values and suspected drug causes).

Results

A total of 751 alerts were generated in 623 patients during the study period. Pharmacists intervened on 39.8 and 44.8 % alerts generated in the ICU and general ward, respectively. Overall, the physician acceptance rate of approximately 90 % was comparable irrespective of patient care setting. Therefore, the number of clinically significant alerts was 88.9 and 83.4 % for the ICU and non-ICU, respectively. The types of drug therapy changes were similar between settings. The PPV of alerts identifying a DRHC was 0.66 in the ICU and 0.76 in general ward patients.

Conclusions

The number and type of clinically significant alerts were similar irrespective of patient population, suggesting that the alerts may be equally as beneficial in the ICU population, despite the challenges in drug-related event adjudication. An opportunity exists to improve the performance of alerts in both settings, so quality improvement programs for measuring alert performance and making refinements is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rothschild JM, Landrigan CP, Cronin JW, et al. The Critical Care Safety Study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1694–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cullen DJ, Sweitzer BJ, Bates DW, Burdick E, Edmondson A, Leape L. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative study of intensive care unit and general care units. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1289–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kane-Gill SL, Kowiatek JG, Weber RJ. A comparison of voluntarily reported medication errors in intensive care and general care units. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:55–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Park S, In Y, Suh GY, Sohn K, Kim E. Evaluation of adverse drug reactions in medical intensive care units. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69:119–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moyen E, Camire E, Stelfox HT. Clinical review: medication errors in critical care. Crit Care. 2008;12:208.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kane-Gill SL, Kirisci L, Verrico MM, Rothschild JM. Analysis of risk factors for adverse events in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:823–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kopp BJ, Erstad BL, Allen ME, Theodorou AA, Priestley G. Medication errors and adverse drug events in an intensive care unit: direct observation approach for detection. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:415–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stockwell DC, Kane-Gill SL. Developing a patient safety surveillance system to identify adverse events in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(6 Suppl):S117–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:194–200.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5:305–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho I, Slight SP, Nanji KC, Seger DL, Dykes P, Bates DW. Understanding responses to a renal dosing decision support system in primary care. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:931.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Horn SD, Bass SB, Burke JP. Preventing adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother. 1994;28:523–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirkendall ES, Kouril M, Minich T, Spooner SA. Analysis of electronic medication orders with large overdoses: opportunities for mitigating dosing errors. Appl Clin Inform. 2014;5:25–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raschke RA, Gollihare B, Wunderlich TA, et al. A computer alert system to prevent injury from adverse drug events. JAMA. 1998;280:1317–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kane-Gill SL, Dasta JF, Schneider PJ, Cook CH. Monitoring abnormal laboratory values as antecedents to drug-induced injury. J Trauma. 2005;59:1457–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kane-Gill SL, LeBlanc JM, Dasta JF, Devabhakthuni S. A multicenter study of the point prevalence of drug-induced hypotension in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(10):2197–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Handler SM, Altman RL, Perera S, et al. A systematic review of the performance characteristics of clinical event monitor signals used to detect adverse drug events in the hospital setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:451–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kane-Gill SL, Visweswaran S, Saul MI, et al. Computerized detection of adverse drug reactions in the medical ICU. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80:570–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Silverman JB, Stapinski CD, Huber C, Ghandi TK, Churchill WW. Computer-based system for preventing adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61:1599–603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kane-Gill SL, Bellamy CJ, Verrico MM, Handler SM, Weber RJ. Evaluating the positive predictive values of antidote signals to detect potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:1185–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Resar RK, Rozich JD, Simmonds T, Haraden CR. A trigger tool to identify adverse events in the intensive care unit. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32:585–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rommers MK, Teepe-Twiss IM, Guchelaar HJ. A computerized adverse drug event alerting system using clinical rules. Drug Saf. 2011;34:233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morimoto T, Gandhi TK, Seger AC, Hsiegh TC, Bates DW. Adverse drug events and medication errors: detection and classification methods. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:306–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kramer MS, Leventhal JM, Hutchinson TA, Feinstein AR. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I. Background, description, and instructions for use. JAMA. 1979;242:623–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones JK. Definition of events associated with drugs: regulatory perspectives. J Rheumatol. 1988;17:14–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Harinstein LM, Kane-Gill SL, Smithburger PL, et al. Use of an abnormal laboratory value–drug combination alert to detect drug-induced thrombocytopenia in critically Ill patients. J Crit Care. 2012;27:242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  29. Jeremy Stangroom. Social Science Statistics. http://www.socscistatistics.com/. Accessed 27 Aug 2014.

  30. Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilcznski JM, et al. Features of effective computerized clinical decision support systems: a meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;346:f657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial support

No financial and material support was provided for this research.

Conflict of interest

John DiPoto, Mitchell Buckley, and Sandra Kane-Gill have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Maricopa Integrated Health System, 2601 E. Roosevelt Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85008, USA

    John P. DiPoto

  2. Department of Pharmacy, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, 1111 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ, 85006, USA

    Mitchell S. Buckley

  3. Pharmacy and Critical Care Medicine, and Clinical Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, USA

    Sandra L. Kane-Gill

  4. Department of Pharmacy, University Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Sandra L. Kane-Gill

Authors
  1. John P. DiPoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mitchell S. Buckley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandra L. Kane-Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitchell S. Buckley.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 162 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DiPoto, J.P., Buckley, M.S. & Kane-Gill, S.L. Evaluation of an Automated Surveillance System Using Trigger Alerts to Prevent Adverse Drug Events in the Intensive Care Unit and General Ward. Drug Saf 38, 311–317 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-015-0272-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-015-0272-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation