PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2801715

Multidisciplinary program for detecting and evaluating adverse drug reactions.

Abstract

An adverse drug reaction (ADR)-reporting program involving detection of charted ADRs by quality assurance nurses and data collection and causality assessment by staff pharmacists is described. The voluntary ADR-reporting mechanism used in a 900-bed, university-based hospital complex produced less than one ADR report per month. The newly implemented system depends on nurses to detect and report documented ADRs through concurrent chart review. Staff pharmacists are then responsible for follow-up chart review, data collection, and causality assignment based on two published algorithms. An inservice education program designed to increase the awareness and understanding of ADRs was provided to the department of pharmacy and the quality assurance nurses. The clinical staff provides quality assurance through weekly ADR committee meetings. Drug information center personnel complete the causality algorithms by using the data collected by the staff pharmacists. The ADR committee then compares the algorithm results of the two assessors. Discrepancies in scoring are evaluated to determine whether a change in the system is necessary. An FDA report is generated if the staff pharmacist assessor and the drug information center assessor obtain results of "probable" for both algorithms. An ADR-reporting program that relies on quality assurance nurses to detect charted ADRs and on staff pharmacists to evaluate reported ADRs increased the average number of ADRs reported from 0.4 to 20 per month.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M R Keith, R A Bellanger-McCleery, J E Fuchs. 1989. Multidisciplinary program for detecting and evaluating adverse drug reactions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2801715/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Concurrent care.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Concurrent Review↗

How to minimize inappropriate utilization of Accident and Emergency Departments: improve the validity of classifying the general practice cases amongst the A&E attendees.

Studies have found that one-third to two-thirds of all patients attending Accident and Emergency (A and E) Departments could be managed appropriately by general practitioners (GPs). There is also evidence that referral to GPs can be acceptable to patients. The question of primary concern is screening non-urgent cases with high degrees of sensitivity (S), specificity (SP), and positive predictive value (PPV). This paper reports the findings of the validity (S, SP and PPV) of nurses and patients in triaging A and E visitors. A cross sectional study was conducted over a 1 year period and subjects were randomly selected from four A and E Departments located across the four principle geographic regions of Hong Kong by stratified, two-stage sampling. S, SP and PPVs were computed for both non-weighted and weighted conditions. The gold standard for defining the true urgency status of each selected patient was based on a review of the patient's record 3-21 days (or longer if necessary) following the A and E visit. The record review in each A and E was blinded and done independently by a panel of two (and if disagreement existed, three) senior emergency physicians who did not practice in the same hospital. The greatest weights would be for incorrect decisions with greatest impact on patients' well being. The most accurate unweighted nurses' triage classification had an average sensitivity of 87.8%, specificity of 83.9%, and a PPV of 70.1%. When weighted, the average sensitivity reduced to 75%, specificity to 65.7%, and PPV to 54%. The most accurate unweighted patients' self-triage classification yielded a sensitivity of 62.5%, specificity of 69.2%, and a PPV of 58.1%, and correspondingly reduced to 43.3, 49.2 and 38.6% if weights were applied. Validity of the derived patients' self-classifications was too inaccurate for practical use. Hong Kong's current use of a five-point urgency scale by nurses would be further refined for identifying non-urgent visitors. If a mechanism was put in place for additional screening on visitors with a borderline semi-urgent or non-urgent status, the nurses could safely reassign non-urgent patients to GP care. If implemented, a significant impact on hospital costs could be realized.

Concurrent Review↗