Frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions due to self-medication: a cross-sectional multicentre survey in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to self-use of medications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and severity of ADRs related to self-medication (ADR-SM) among emergency department (ED) patients and to describe their main characteristics. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted over a period of 8 weeks (1 March to 20 April 2010), in the ED of 11 French academic hospitals. Adult patients presenting to the ED during randomization periods were included, with the exception of cases of self-drug poisoning, inability to complete self-medication questionnaire, or refusal. Clinical outcomes were assessed as well as history of self-medication behaviours and all drugs taken. All doubtful files and those related to ADR-SM were systematically reviewed by an expert committee. RESULTS: A total of 3,027 of 4,661 patients presenting to the ED met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 84.4 % declared a self-medication behaviour, 63.7 % took at least one non-prescribed drug during the previous 2 weeks and 59.9 % took a prescribed medication. A total of 296 patients experienced an ADR (9.78 %), of which 52 (1.72 %) were related to self-medication. Those ADRs related to self-medication included prescribed drugs (n = 19), non-prescribed drugs (n = 17), treatment discontinuation (n = 14), and interactions between non-prescribed and prescribed drugs (n = 2). The ADRs attributed to non-prescribed drugs represented 1 % of all patients taking non-prescribed drugs (n = 1,927). ADR severity was significantly lower for those related to self-medication (p = .032). CONCLUSION: Self-medication is frequent; its potential toxicity should not be neglected, taking into account the rate of adverse drug reactions in about 1 % of ED patient.

A computerized handheld decision-support system to improve pulmonary embolism diagnosis: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Testing for pulmonary embolism often differs from that recommended by evidence-based guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a handheld clinical decision-support system to improve the diagnostic work-up of suspected pulmonary embolism among patients in the emergency department. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial. Assignment was by random-number table, providers were not blinded, and outcome assessment was automated. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00188032). SETTING: 20 emergency departments in France. PATIENTS: 1103 and 1768 consecutive outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. INTERVENTION: After a preintervention period involving 20 centers and 1103 patients, in which providers grew accustomed to inputting clinical data into handheld devices and investigators assessed baseline testing, emergency departments were randomly assigned to activation of a decision-support system on the devices (10 centers, 753 patients) or posters and pocket cards that showed validated diagnostic strategies (10 centers, 1015 patients). MEASUREMENTS: Appropriateness of diagnostic work-up, defined as any sequence of tests that yielded a posttest probability less than 5% or greater than 85% (primary outcome) or as strict adherence to guideline recommendations (secondary outcome); number of tests per patient (secondary outcome). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who received appropriate diagnostic work-ups was greater during the trial than in the preintervention period in both groups, but the increase was greater in the computer-based guidelines group (adjusted mean difference in increase, 19.3 percentage points favoring computer-based guidelines [95% CI, 2.9 to 35.6 percentage points]; P = 0.023). Among patients with appropriate work-ups, those in the computer-based guidelines group received slightly fewer tests than did patients in the paper guidelines group (mean tests per patient, 1.76 [SD, 0.98] vs. 2.25 [SD, 1.04]; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: The study was not designed to show a difference in the clinical outcomes of patients during follow-up. CONCLUSION: A handheld decision-support system improved diagnostic decision making for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.