Drug Safety

, Volume 25, Issue 14, pp 1035–1044 | Cite as

Assessing the Feasibility of Using an Adverse Drug Reaction Preventability Scale in Clinical Practice

A Study in a French Emergency Department
  • Pascale Olivier
  • Olivier Boulbés
  • Marie Tubery
  • Dominique Lauque
  • Jean-Louis Montastruc
  • Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective: To assess the preventability of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) leading to hospital admissions and to investigate the feasibility of the use of a standardised preventability scale in clinical practice.

Design: The study was a prospective pharmacovigilance study. All patients more than 15 years old admitted to an emergency department during a period of 4 weeks were included. Characteristics of patients admitted for a suspected ADR (cases) were compared to those admitted for other reasons (controls). Preventability was assessed in two different ways: (i) by using a standardised preventability scale; and (ii) by the assessment of four reviewers without the scale. Results of the two methods were compared.

Patients: In total, 671 patients were admitted to an emergency department during the study period.

Results: Overall, 44 ADRs were identified involving 41 patients. The incidence of hospital admissions for ADRs was 6.1 per 100 admissions (95% CI 4.4–8.3). According to the French causality assessment method, 71% of ADRs were ‘possible’, 18% were ‘plausible’ and 11% were ‘likely’. Using the standardised preventability scale, one-third of all ADRs were considered as being preventable (9% ‘definitely’ and 25% ‘potentially’ preventable). Reviewers found that 54.5% of ADRs were ‘preventable’. Discrepancies between the two methods concerned mainly cases defined as not preventable by the scale. In general, reviewers overestimated the preventability of ADR compared with the scale.

Conclusions: These results emphasise that ADRs leading to hospitalisation are frequent, with one-third of them likely to be preventable. Moreover, the risk of ADRs mainly involved a small number of drugs. Our experience suggests that there is a need for further studies to validate the French standardised scale of preventability assessment.

References

  1. 1.
    Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: excess lenght of stay, extra costs and attribuable mortality. JAMA 1997; 277(4): 301–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hallas J, Harvald B, Gram LF, et al. Drug related hospital admissions: the role of definitions and intensity of data collection. J Intern Med 1990; 228: 83–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Detournay B, Fagnani F, Pouyanne P, et al. Cost of hospitalizations related to side-effects of drugs. Therapie 2000; 55: 137–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Einarson TR. Drug related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 832–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Imbs JL, Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, et al. Iatrogénie médicamenteuse: estimation de sa prévalence dans les hôpitaux publics français. Therapie 1999; 54: 21–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, et al. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study [letter]. BMJ 2000; 320: 1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Letrilliart L, Hanslik T, Biour M, et al. Postdischarge adverse drug reactions in primary care originating from hospial care in France: a nationwide prospective study. Drug Saf 2001; 24(10): 781–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lagnaoui R, Moore N, Fach J, et al. Adverse drug reactions in a department of systemic diseases-oriented internal medicine: prevalence, incidence, direct costs and avoidability. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 55: 181–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pearson TF, Pittman DG, Longley JM, et al. Factors associated with preventable adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1994; 51: 2268–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events: implications for prevention. JAMA 1995; 274: 29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dartnell JGA, Anderson RP, Chohan V, et al. Hospitalisation for adverse events related to drug therapy: incidence, avoidability and costs. Med J Aust 1996; 164: 659–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersen LA, Brennan TA, O’Neil AC, et al. Does housestaff discontinuity of care increase the risk for preventable adverse events? Ann Intern Med 1994; 121: 866–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raschetti R, Morgutti M, Menniti-Ippolito F, et al. Suspected adverse drug events requiring emergency department visits or hospital of admissions. Eur Clin J Pharmacol 1999; 54: 959–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on preventability of adverse drug reactions [letter]. Hosp Pharm 1992; 27: 538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Imbs JL, Pletan Y, Spriet A, et al. Evaluation de la iatrogénèse médicamenteuse évitable: méthodologie. Therapie 1998; 53: 365–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. Collaborating centers for international drug monitoring. WHO publication DEM/NC/ 84.153 (E). Geneva: WHO, 1984Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Organisation Mandiale de la Santos. Classification Internationale des Maladies, geme revision(ICD-9). Geneva, Switzerland, 1977Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification index, Geneva: WHO Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology, 1992Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bégaud B. Dictionary of pharmacoepidemiology. ARME-Pharmacovigilance. New York; John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bégaud B, Evreux JC, Jouglard J, et al. Unexpected or toxic drug reaction assessment (imputation): actualization of the method used in France. Therapie 1985; 40: 115–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hallas J, Gram LF, Grodum E, et al. Drug-related admissions to medical wards: a population base survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 33: 61–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bongard V, Menard-Tache S, Bagheri H, et al. Perception of the risk of adverse drug reactions: difference between health professionals and non-health professionals. Br J Clin Pharmacol. In press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascale Olivier
    • 1
  • Olivier Boulbés
    • 2
  • Marie Tubery
    • 2
  • Dominique Lauque
    • 2
  • Jean-Louis Montastruc
    • 1
  • Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Centre Midi-Pyrénées de Pharmacovigilance, Faculty of MedicineToulouse University HospitalToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of EmergencyToulouse University HospitalToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations