Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2005 Jun;14(3):221–226. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2002.002972

Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients*

D Classen, S Pestotnik, R Evans, J Burke, J Battles
PMCID: PMC1744018  PMID: 15933322

Abstract

Design: Prospective study of all patients admitted to our hospital over an 18 month period.

Setting: LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, a 520-bed tertiary care center affiliated with the University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.

Patients: We developed a computerized ADE monitor, and computer programs were written using an integrated hospital information system to allow for multiple source detection of potential ADEs occurring in hospital patients. Signals of potential ADEs, both voluntary and automated, included sudden medication stop orders, antidote ordering, and certain abnormal laboratory values. Each day a list of all potential ADEs from these sources was generated, and a pharmacist reviewed the medical records of all patients with possible ADEs for accuracy and causality. Verified ADEs were characterized as mild, moderate, or severe and as type A (dose-dependent or predictable) or type B (idiosyncratic or allergic) reactions, and causality was further measured using a standardized scoring method.

Outcome measure: The number and characterization of ADEs detected.

Results: Over 18 months we monitored 36 653 hospitalized patients. There were 731 verified ADEs identified in 648 patients, 701 ADEs were characterized as moderate or severe, and 664 were classified as type A reactions. During this same period only nine ADEs were identified using traditional detection methods. Physicians, pharmacists, and nurses voluntarily reported 92 of the 731 ADEs detected using this automated system. The other 631 ADEs were detected from automated signals, the most common of which were diphenhydramine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride use, high serum drug levels, leukopenia, and the use of phytonadione and antidiarrheals. The most common symptoms and signs were pruritus, nausea and/or vomiting, rash, and confusion-lethargy. The most common drug classes involved were analgesics, anti-infectives, and cardiovascular agents.

Conclusion: We believe that screening for ADEs with a computerized hospital information system offers a potential method for improving the detection and characterization of these events in hospital patients.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (79.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bates D. W., Cullen D. J., Laird N., Petersen L. A., Small S. D., Servi D., Laffel G., Sweitzer B. J., Shea B. F., Hallisey R. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995 Jul 5;274(1):29–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Battles J. B., Lilford R. J. Organizing patient safety research to identify risks and hazards. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Dec;12 (Suppl 2):ii2–ii7. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett B. S., Lipman A. G. Comparative study of prospective surveillance and voluntary reporting in determining the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1977 Sep;34(9):931–936. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berry L. L., Segal R., Sherrin T. P., Fudge K. A. Sensitivity and specificity of three methods of detecting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1988 Jul;45(7):1534–1539. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Caranasos G. J., Stewart R. B., Cluff L. E. Drug-induced illness leading to hospitalization. JAMA. 1974 May 6;228(6):713–717. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Classen D. C., Burke J. P., Pestotnik S. L., Evans R. S., Stevens L. E. Surveillance for quality assessment: IV. Surveillance using a hospital information system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991 Apr;12(4):239–244. doi: 10.1086/646331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Classen D. C., Pestotnik S. L., Evans R. S., Burke J. P. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA. 1991 Nov 27;266(20):2847–2851. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Edlavitch S. A. Adverse drug event reporting. Improving the low US reporting rates. Arch Intern Med. 1988 Jul;148(7):1499–1503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gurwitz J. H., Avorn J. The ambiguous relation between aging and adverse drug reactions. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Jun 1;114(11):956–966. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-11-956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jacinto M. S., Kleinmann K. Hospital pharmacy program for reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983 Mar;40(3):444–445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jick H. Adverse drug reactions: the magnitude of the problem. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1984 Oct;74(4 Pt 2):555–557. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(84)90106-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jick H. Drugs--remarkably nontoxic. N Engl J Med. 1974 Oct 17;291(16):824–828. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197410172911605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Karch F. E., Lasagna L. Adverse drug reactions. A critical review. JAMA. 1975 Dec 22;234(12):1236–1241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Leape L. L., Brennan T. A., Laird N., Lawthers A. G., Localio A. R., Barnes B. A., Hebert L., Newhouse J. P., Weiler P. C., Hiatt H. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 7;324(6):377–384. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199102073240605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Maliekal J., Thornton J. A description of a successful computerized adverse drug reaction tracking program. Hosp Formul. 1990 Apr;25(4):436-9, 442. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McMullin S. T., Reichley R. M., Kahn M. G., Dunagan W. C., Bailey T. C. Automated system for identifying potential dosage problems at a large university hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1997 Mar 1;54(5):545–549. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/54.5.545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Melmon K. L. Preventable drug reactions--causes and cures. N Engl J Med. 1971 Jun 17;284(24):1361–1368. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197106172842408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Michel D. J., Knodel L. C. Comparison of three algorithms used to evaluate adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986 Jul;43(7):1709–1714. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller R. R. Drug surveillance utilizing epidemiologic methods. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1973 Jul;30(7):584–592. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Miller R. R. Hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions. A report from the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program. Arch Intern Med. 1974 Aug;134(2):219–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Miller R. R. Interpretation of studies on adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1977 Jul;34(7):753–754. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Naranjo C. A., Busto U., Sellers E. M., Sandor P., Ruiz I., Roberts E. A., Janecek E., Domecq C., Greenblatt D. J. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981 Aug;30(2):239–245. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1981.154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Nelson R. W., Shane R. Developing an adverse drug reaction reporting program. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983 Mar;40(3):445–446. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ouslander J. G. Drug therapy in the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1981 Dec;95(6):711–722. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-95-6-711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Porter J., Jick H. Drug-related deaths among medical inpatients. JAMA. 1977 Feb 28;237(9):879–881. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pryor T. A., Gardner R. M., Clayton P. D., Warner H. R. The HELP system. J Med Syst. 1983 Apr;7(2):87–102. doi: 10.1007/BF00995116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rawlins M. D. Clinical pharmacology. Adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Mar 21;282(6268):974–976. doi: 10.1136/bmj.282.6268.974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Resar R. K., Rozich J. D., Classen D. Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Dec;12 (Suppl 2):ii39–ii45. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rogers A. S., Israel E., Smith C. R., Levine D., McBean A. M., Valente C., Faich G. Physician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to reporting adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med. 1988 Jul;148(7):1596–1600. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rossi A. C., Bosco L., Faich G. A., Tanner A., Temple R. The importance of adverse reaction reporting by physicians. Suprofen and the flank pain syndrome. JAMA. 1988 Feb 26;259(8):1203–1204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanazaro P. J., Mills D. H. A critique of the use of generic screening in quality assessment. JAMA. 1991 Apr 17;265(15):1977–1981. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Shapiro S., Slone D., Lewis G. P., Jick H. Fatal drug reactions among medical inpatients. JAMA. 1971 Apr 19;216(3):467–472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Steel K., Gertman P. M., Crescenzi C., Anderson J. Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital. N Engl J Med. 1981 Mar 12;304(11):638–642. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198103123041104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Tatro D. S., Moore T. N., Cohen S. N. Computer-based system for adverse drug reaction detection and prevention. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1979 Feb;36(2):198–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES