Abstract
We developed an adverse drug event (ADE) monitor based on published rules, made modifications to improve its sensitivity and positive predictive value, and compared it to manual chart review and self report. Over the study period, the ADE monitor (COMP) identified 279 ADEs while the manual chart review and self-report mechanism (CHART) identified 421; 79 cases overlapped. Cases identified by COMP were more likely to be severe (p=0.03) but were similarly preventable (P=0.10). Changes in the knowledge base substantially improved the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the rules.
Full text
PDFPage 828
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- 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]