OBJECTIVE: Outpatient drug complications have not been well studied. We sought to assess the incidence and characteristics of outpatient drug complications, identify their clinical and nonclinical correlates, and evaluate their impact on patient satisfaction. DESIGN:Retrospective chart reviews and patient surveys. SETTING: Eleven Boston-area ambulatory clinics. PATIENTS:We randomly selected 2,248 outpatients, 20 to 75 years old. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Among 2,248 patients reporting prescription drug use, 394 (18%) reported a drug complication. In contrast, chart review revealed an adverse drug event in only 64 patients (3%). In univariate analyses, significant correlates of patient-reported drug complications were number of medical problems, number of medications, renal disease, failure to explain side effects before treatment, lower medication compliance, and primary language other than English or Spanish. In multivariate analysis, independent correlates were number of medical problems (odds ratio T herapeutic drugs are a core component of the practice of medicine; 75% of office visits to primary care providers involve the initiation or continuation of drug therapy. 1 Adverse drug events (ADEs), defined as injuries due to drugs, occur commonly in the hospital setting. In the ADE Prevention Study, ADEs occurred at a rate of 6.5 per 100 admissions, and 28% of these events were preventable. 2 Many other studies have also been done to characterize inpatient ADEs. [3][4][5][6] Data suggest that ADEs among outpatients are an important problem as well. A recent meta-analysis suggested that in 1994 more than 1 million outpatients in the United States experienced an ADE that required admission to the hospital, and that 4.7% of admissions were caused by drugs. 7 The study also suggested that there were 106,000 fatal ADEs in the United States in 1994, which would place them between the fourth and sixth leading causes of death, although these projections may be high. 8 A recent study of U.S. death certificates showed that the number of people who reportedly died from medication errors increased by 2. 5-fold from 1983 to 1993, 9 suggesting that the problem may be worsening. However, compared with the inpatient setting, there is relatively little information about ADEs in the ambulatory setting. Estimates of the proportion of outpatients experiencing an ADE per year have ranged from 5% to 35%. 10,11 Several reasons exist for the relative lack of information about ADEs in the ambulatory setting. In contrast to inpatients, outpatients are responsible for both obtaining and administering their medications. Therefore, the process is much less controlled. Also, physicians have less regular contact with outpatients and are less likely to hear about their problems. Chart review also has limitations related to high costs and inadequate documentation. 12 Therefore, previous studies of outpatients have relied heavily on patient report, which has inherent limitations. Dependence on patients' recall during interviews or on re-[
ImportanceMedication computerised provider order entry (CPOE) has been shown to decrease errors and is being widely adopted. However, CPOE also has potential for introducing or contributing to errors.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are to (a) analyse medication error reports where CPOE was reported as a ‘contributing cause’ and (b) develop ‘use cases’ based on these reports to test vulnerability of current CPOE systems to these errors.MethodsA review of medication errors reported to United States Pharmacopeia MEDMARX reporting system was made, and a taxonomy was developed for CPOE-related errors. For each error we evaluated what went wrong and why and identified potential prevention strategies and recurring error scenarios. These scenarios were then used to test vulnerability of leading CPOE systems, asking typical users to enter these erroneous orders to assess the degree to which these problematic orders could be entered.ResultsBetween 2003 and 2010, 1.04 million medication errors were reported to MEDMARX, of which 63 040 were reported as CPOE related. A review of 10 060 CPOE-related cases was used to derive 101 codes describing what went wrong, 67 codes describing reasons why errors occurred, 73 codes describing potential prevention strategies and 21 codes describing recurring error scenarios. Ability to enter these erroneous order scenarios was tested on 13 CPOE systems at 16 sites. Overall, 298 (79.5%) of the erroneous orders were able to be entered including 100 (28.0%) being ‘easily’ placed, another 101 (28.3%) with only minor workarounds and no warnings.Conclusions and relevanceMedication error reports provide valuable information for understanding CPOE-related errors. Reports were useful for developing taxonomy and identifying recurring errors to which current CPOE systems are vulnerable. Enhanced monitoring, reporting and testing of CPOE systems are important to improve CPOE safety.
The goal of this study was to develop and validate clinical prediction rules for bacteremia and subtypes of bacteremia in patients with sepsis syndrome. Thus, a prospective cohort study, including a stratified random sample of 1342 episodes of sepsis syndrome, was done in eight academic tertiary care hospitals. The derivation set included 881 episodes, and the validation set included 461. Main outcome measures were bacteremia caused by any organism, gram-negative rods, gram-positive cocci, and fungal bloodstream infection. The spread in probability between low- and high-risk groups in the derivation sets was from 14.5% to 60.6% for bacteremia of any type, from 9.8% to 32.8% for gram-positive bacteremia, from 5.3% to 41.9% for gram-negative bacteremia, and from 0.6% to 26.1% for fungemia. Because the model for gram-positive bacteremia performed poorly, a model predicting Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia was developed; it performed better, with a low- to high-risk spread of from 2.6% to 21.0%. The prediction models allow stratification of patients according to risk of bloodstream infections; their clinical utility remains to be demonstrated.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.