Preventable adverse drug events: Descriptive epidemiology.

AIM: Our objective was to identify preventable adverse drug events and factors contributing to their development. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review combining data from three prospective multicentre observational studies that assessed emergency department patients for adverse drug events. A clinical pharmacist and physician independently reviewed the charts, extracted data and rated the preventability of each adverse drug event. A third reviewer adjudicated all discordant or uncertain cases. We calculated the proportion of adverse drug events that were deemed preventable, performed multivariable logistic regression to explore the characteristics of patients with preventable events, and identified contributing factors. RESULTS: We reviewed the records of 1 356 adverse drug events in 1 234 patients. Raters considered 869 (64.1%) of adverse drug events probably or definitely preventable. Patients with mental health diagnoses (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.5) and diabetes (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2-2.4) were more likely to present with preventable events. The medications most commonly implicated in preventable events were warfarin (9.4%), hydrochlorothiazide (4.5%), furosemide (4.0%), insulin (3.9%) and acetylsalicylic acid (2.7%). Common contributing factors included inadequate patient instructions, monitoring and follow-up, and reassessments after medication changes had been made. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with mental health conditions and diabetes require close monitoring. Efforts to address the identified contributing factors are needed.

Repeat adverse drug events associated with outpatient medications: a descriptive analysis of 3 observational studies in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events are an important cause of preventable emergency department visits and hospital admissions. We examined repeat adverse drug events associated with outpatient medications resulting in acute care utilization. METHODS: This descriptive analysis combined data from 3 prospective multicentre observational studies, in which clinical pharmacists and physicians independently evaluated patients who visited the emergency department for adverse drug events in 3 hospitals in British Columbia. During these studies, an independent committee adjudicated all discordant and uncertain cases using a standardized algorithm. For the current study, we retrospectively reviewed the medical and research records of all patients 19 years of age and older who had been diagnosed with an adverse drug event during the primary studies to determine the proportion of repeat events. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with repeat events; we adjusted for clustering at the hospital level for patient-level analyses and at the patient level for event-level analyses. RESULTS: Among 12 977 patients, 1178 were diagnosed with 1296 adverse drug events at the point of care. Of these events, 32.5% (421 of 1296; 95% confidence interval [CI] 29.8%-35.1%) were repeat events, of which 75.3% (317 of 421; 95% CI 71.1%-79.5%) were deemed probably or definitely preventable as re-exposure to the culprit medication or repeat withdrawal of an indicated medication was inconsistent with best medical practice. Patients presenting with repeat events were more likely to have renal failure (odds ratio [OR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.32%-3.07%) or a mental health diagnosis (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.02%-1.88%). INTERPRETATION: A high proportion of adverse drug events were repeat events, most of which were deemed preventable. Interventions to ensure that care providers are aware of previously diagnosed adverse drug events when prescribing or dispensing need to be developed and evaluated and may reduce unintentional re-exposures to previously harmful medications.

Methods for evaluating adverse drug event preventability in emergency department patients.

BACKGROUND: There is a high degree of variability in assessing the preventability of adverse drug events, limiting the ability to compare rates of preventable adverse drug events across different studies. We compared three methods for determining preventability of adverse drug events in emergency department patients and explored their strengths and weaknesses. METHODS: This mixed-methods study enrolled emergency department patients diagnosed with at least one adverse drug event from three prior prospective studies. A clinical pharmacist and physician reviewed the medical and research records of all patients, and independently rated each event's preventability using a "best practice-based" approach, an "error-based" approach, and an "algorithm-based" approach. Raters discussed discordant ratings until reaching consensus. We assessed the inter-rater agreement between clinicians using the same assessment method, and between different assessment methods using Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Qualitative researchers observed discussions, took field notes, and reviewed free text comments made by clinicians in a "comment" box in the data collection form. We developed a coding structure and iteratively analyzed qualitative data for emerging themes regarding the application of each preventability assessment method using NVivo. RESULTS: Among 1356 adverse drug events, a best practice-based approach rated 64.1% (95% CI: 61.5-66.6%) of events as preventable, an error-based approach rated 64.3% (95% CI: 61.8-66.9%) of events as preventable, and an algorithm-based approach rated 68.8% (95% CI: 66.1-71.1%) of events as preventable. When applying the same method, the inter-rater agreement between clinicians was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.48-0.59), 0.55 (95%CI: 0.50-0.60) and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49-0.55) for the best practice-, error-, and algorithm-based approaches, respectively. The inter-rater agreement between different assessment methods using consensus ratings for each ranged between 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00). Compared to a best practice-based assessment, clinicians believed the algorithm-based assessment was too rigid. It did not account for the complexities of and variations in clinical practice, and frequently was too definitive when assigning preventability ratings. CONCLUSION: There was good agreement between all three methods of determining the preventability of adverse drug events. However, clinicians found the algorithmic approach constraining, and preferred a best practice-based assessment method.

Incidence of clinically relevant medication errors in the era of electronically prepopulated medication reconciliation forms: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: To reduce medication discrepancies (unintended differences between a patient's outpatient and inpatient medication regimens), Canadian institutions have implemented medication reconciliation forms that are prepopulated with outpatient medication dispensing data. These may prompt prescribers to reorder discontinued medications or continue newly contraindicated medications. Our objective was to evaluate the incidence of medication discrepancies and errors of commission after the implementation of such forms. METHODS: This retrospective chart review included patients previously enrolled in an observational study in which a research pharmacist prospectively collected best-possible medication histories in the emergency department. Research assistants uninvolved with the parent study compared medication orders written in the first 48 hours after admission with the research pharmacist's best-possible medication history to identify medication discrepancies and errors of commission, defined as inappropriate medication continuations and reordering of previously stopped medications. An independent panel adjudicated the clinical significance of the errors. RESULTS: Of 151 patients, 71 (47.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 39.2-54.9]) were exposed to 112 medication errors on admission. Of the 112 errors, 24 (21.4% [95% CI 14.9-29.9]) were clinically significant. Errors of commission accounted for 24.1% (27/112 [95% CI 17.3-32.8]) of all errors; 10 (37.0% [95% CI 18.8-55.2]) of the errors of commission were clinically significant. INTERPRETATION: Medication errors were common after the implementation of electronically prepopulated medication reconciliation forms. Prospective research is required to examine the impact of prepopulated medication reconciliation forms and ensure they do not facilitate errors of commission.

Septic arthritis of the pubic symphysis from Pseudomonas aeruginosa: reconsidering traditional risk factors and symptoms in the elderly patient.

A high-functioning 82-year-old man presented with lower lumbar pain and pubic tenderness. On admission he was afebrile with a normal white count. A grossly elevated C reactive protein was noted. CT scan of the pelvis showed a fluid collection anterior to the pubic symphysis and to the right of the midline measuring 2.0 × 2.2 cm. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was cultured from the fluid collection. The patient had no history of intravenous drug use, pelvic surgeries, malignancies or trauma. We report what we believe is the first documented case of P aeruginosa infection of the pubic symphysis in an elderly patient that did not have any of the traditional risk factors associated with neither P aeruginosa septic arthritis nor infections of the pubic symphysis. Instead, we propose that phimosis with chronic infection of the foreskin and balanitis may have led to septic arthritis.

Twelve tips for teaching in a provincially distributed medical education program.

BACKGROUND: As distributed undergraduate and postgraduate medical education becomes more common, the challenges with the teaching and learning process also increase. AIM: To collaboratively engage front line teachers in improving teaching in a distributed medical program. METHOD: We recently conducted a contest on teaching tips in a provincially distributed medical education program and received entries from faculty and resident teachers. RESULTS: Tips that are helpful for teaching around clinical cases at distributed teaching sites include: ask "what if" questions to maximize clinical teaching opportunities, try the 5-min short snapper, multitask to allow direct observation, create dedicated time for feedback, there are really no stupid questions, and work with heterogeneous group of learners. Tips that are helpful for multi-site classroom teaching include: promote teacher-learner connectivity, optimize the long distance working relationship, use the reality television show model to maximize retention and captivate learners, include less teaching content if possible, tell learners what you are teaching and make it relevant and turn on the technology tap to fill the knowledge gap. CONCLUSION: Overall, the above-mentioned tips offered by front line teachers can be helpful in distributed medical education.

Medication reconciliation: identifying medication discrepancies in acutely ill hospitalized older adults.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies may occur during transitions from community to acute care hospitals. The elderly are at risk for such discrepancies due to multiple comorbidities and complex medication regimens. Medication reconciliation involves verifying medication use and identifying and rectifying discrepancies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the prevalences and types of medication discrepancies in acutely ill older patients. METHODS: Patients who were ≥ 70 years and were admitted to any of 3 acute care for elders (ACE) units over a period of 2 nonconsecutive months in 2008 were prospectively enrolled. Medication discrepancies were classified as intentional, undocumented intentional, and unintentional. Unintentional medication discrepancies were classified by a blinded rater for potential to harm. This study was primarily qualitative, and descriptive (univariate) statistics are presented. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients (42 women; mean [SD] age, 84.0 [6.5] years) were enrolled. There were 37 unintentional prescription-medication discrepancies in 27 patients (40.3%) and 43 unintentional over-the-counter (OTC) medication discrepancies in 19 patients (28.4%), which translates to Medication Reconciliation Success Index (MRSI) of 89% for prescription medications and 59% for OTC medications. The overall MRSI was 83%. More than half of the prescription-medication discrepancies (56.8%) were classified as potentially causing moderate/severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Despite a fairly high overall MRSI in these patients admitted to ACE units, a substantial proportion of the prescription-medication discrepancies were associated with potential harm.

Self-reported understanding of diabetes and its treatment among elderly ambulatory subjects in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: There is little published information on the level of self-reported understanding of diabetes mellitus (DM) and its treatment among elderly subjects with DM or on the association between such understanding and the likelihood of errors in the recall of medication regimens. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of the present study were to describe self-reported understanding of DM and its treatment among elderly subjects with DM, and to determine whether poorer understanding of the disease and its treatment was predictive of medication-recall errors. Secondary objectives were to assess the potential association of certain demographic and disease-specific variables with subjects' understanding of DM and its treatment. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of elderly subjects (age > or =65 years) with DM who were taking oral hypoglycemic medications and/or insulin and were seen at an outpatient DM clinic in British Columbia. The study questionnaire, which was administered at the clinic, included questions on self-reported understanding of DM and its treatment, sources of disease and drug information, and subjects' specific medication regimens. Subjects' reports of their medication regimens (medication, dose, directions for administration) were reconciled against information in the provincial prescription drug database. A medication-recall error was defined as a discrepancy between the self-reported medication name (including failure to mention a medication), dose, or frequency of administration and the record in the database. Medication-recall errors were used as a proxy for the likelihood of making an error that could lead to actual medication-related harm. RESULTS: Forty-nine subjects (25 men, 24 women; mean [SD] age, 76.1 [6.3] years) were enrolled in the study. The majority (59.2%) of subjects reported having an above average understanding of DM, and 36.7% reported having an above average understanding of DM treatment. When subjects' reported diabetic medication regimens were checked against the provincial prescription database, 12 subjects had not accurately recalled at least 1 aspect of their regimen: 6 cases involved incorrect recall of the dose, 4 involved inability to state the medication name, and 2 involved omitting to mention a medication. Among the 12 subjects with medication-recall errors, 10 (83.3%) reported having an above average understanding of DM, and 7 (58.3%) reported having an above average understanding of DM treatment. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, despite a high self-reported understanding of DM and its treatment, 24.5% of subjects made at least 1 error in accurately recalling their medication regimen.