Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Aug;80(8):570-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.04.005. Epub 2011 May 31.

Computerized detection of adverse drug reactions in the medical intensive care unit

Affiliations

Computerized detection of adverse drug reactions in the medical intensive care unit

Sandra L Kane-Gill et al. Int J Med Inform. 2011 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: Clinical event monitors are a type of active medication monitoring system that can use signals to alert clinicians to possible adverse drug reactions. The primary goal was to evaluate the positive predictive values of select signals used to automate the detection of ADRs in the medical intensive care unit.

Method: This is a prospective, case series of adult patients in the medical intensive care unit during a six-week period who had one of five signals presents: an elevated blood urea nitrogen, vancomycin, or quinidine concentration, or a low sodium or glucose concentration. Alerts were assessed using 3 objective published adverse drug reaction determination instruments. An event was considered an adverse drug reaction when 2 out of 3 instruments had agreement of possible, probable or definite. Positive predictive values were calculated as the proportion of alerts that occurred, divided by the number of times that alerts occurred and adverse drug reactions were confirmed.

Results: 145 patients were eligible for evaluation. For the 48 patients (50% male) having an alert, the mean±SD age was 62±19 years. A total of 253 alerts were generated. Positive predictive values were 1.0, 0.55, 0.38 and 0.33 for vancomycin, glucose, sodium, and blood urea nitrogen, respectively. A quinidine alert was not generated during the evaluation.

Conclusions: Computerized clinical event monitoring systems should be considered when developing methods to detect adverse drug reactions as part of intensive care unit patient safety surveillance systems, since they can automate the detection of these events using signals that have good performance characteristics by processing commonly available laboratory and medication information.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Statement: No author has a conflict of interest with the contents of this manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
High-level overview of the clinical event monitor.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Elixhauser A, Owens P. Statistical Brief #29: Adverse Drug Events in U.S Hospitals, 2004: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2007. - PubMed
    1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279:1200–1205. - PubMed
    1. Bates D, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. The Costs of Adverse Drug Events in Hospitalized Patients. JAMA. 1997;277:307–311. - PubMed
    1. Wilmer A, Louie K, Dodek P, Wong H, Ayas N. Incidence of medication errors and adverse drug events in the ICU: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e7. - PubMed
    1. Cullen DJ, Sweitzer BJ, Bates DW, Burdick E, Edmondson A, Leape LL. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative study of intensive care and general care units. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1289–1297. - PubMed

Publication types