Corinne M. Hohl

Incidence, severity and preventability of medication-related visits to the emergency department: a prospective study

Background: Medication-related visits to the emergency department are an important but poorly understood phenomenon. We sought to evaluate the frequency, severity and preventability of drug-related visits to the emergency department. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study of randomly selected adults presenting to the emergency department over a 12-week period. Emergency department visits were identified as drug-related on the basis of assessment by a pharmacist research assistant and an emergency physician; discrepancies were adjudicated by 2 independent reviewers. Results: Among the 1017 patients included in the study, the emergency department visit was identified as drug-related for 122 patients (12.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.1%–14.2%); of these, 83 visits (68.0%, 95% CI 59.0%–76.2%) were deemed preventable. Severity was classified as mild in 15.6% of the 122 cases, moderate in 74.6% and severe in 9.8%. The most common reasons for drug-related visits were adverse drug reactions (39.3%), nonadherence (27.9%) and use of the wrong or suboptimal drug (11.5%). The probability of admission was significantly higher among patients who had a drug-related visit than among those whose visit was not drug-related (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46–3.27, p < 0.001), and among those admitted, the median length of stay was longer (8.0 [interquartile range 23.5] v. 5.5 [interquartile range 10.0] days, p = 0.06). Interpretation: More than 1 in 9 emergency department visits are due to drug-related adverse events, a potentially preventable problem in our health care system.

Safety and Clinical Effectiveness of Midazolam versus Propofol for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES To synthesize the evidence comparing the adverse event (AE) profile and clinical effectiveness of midazolam and propofol for procedural sedation (PS) in adults in the emergency care setting. METHODS The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the use of either midazolam and/or propofol for adult PS in the emergency department (ED). A systematic search strategy was developed and applied to six bibliographic reference databases. Three emergency medicine journals, the Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Newsletter, and conference proceedings were hand-searched. Retrieved articles were reviewed and data were abstracted using standardized data collection. Trial quality was assessed using the Jadad score. The outcomes assessed were the proportion of patients with AEs and the pooled mean difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS. RESULTS Of 229 articles identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of AEs. Only one major AE to PS was found, resulting in no statistically significant difference in the proportion of major AEs between agents. Four studies were RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of clinical effectiveness. Two trials met criteria for good quality. The RCTs enrolled between 32 and 86 patients, and the most common indications for PS were orthopedic reductions and cardioversions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the proportion of patients with successful PS in favor of propofol (effect difference 2.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -6.5 to 15.2). CONCLUSIONS The authors found no significant difference in the safety profile and the proportion of successful PS between midazolam and propofol for adults in the ED.

Outcomes of Emergency Department Patients Presenting With Adverse Drug Events

STUDY OBJECTIVE Our objectives are to describe the outcomes of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) because of an adverse drug event and to compare them with outcomes of patients presenting for other reasons. METHODS This prospective observational study was conducted at Vancouver General Hospital, a 955-bed tertiary care hospital. We prospectively enrolled adults presenting to the ED between March and June 2006, using a systematic sampling algorithm. Pharmacists and physicians independently evaluated patients for adverse drug events. An independent committee reviewed and adjudicated cases in which assessments were discordant or uncertain. Data from the index visit were linked to vital statistics, administrative health services utilization, and cost of care data. RESULTS Of 1,000 patients, 122 (12.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3% to 14.4%) presented to the ED because of an adverse drug event. Of these, 48 presented because of an adverse drug reaction (one type of adverse drug event defined as an unintended response that occurred despite use of an appropriate drug dosage). We found no difference in mortality among patients presenting with and without adverse drug reactions (14.6% versus 5.9%; hazard ratio 1.57; 95% CI 0.70 to 3.52). After adjustment, patients with adverse drug events had a higher risk of spending additional days in the hospital per month (6.3% versus 3.4%; odds ratio 1.52; 95% CI 1.43 to 1.62) and higher rate of outpatient health care encounters (1.73 versus 1.22; rate ratio 1.20; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40). The adjusted median monthly cost of care was 1.90 times higher (Can

The Effect of a Bolus Dose of Etomidate on Cortisol Levels, Mortality, and Health Services Utilization: A Systematic Review

325 versus

The effect of ketamine on intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressure and health outcomes: a systematic review.

96; 95% CI 1.18 to 3.08). CONCLUSION ED patients presenting with an adverse drug event incurred greater health services utilization and costs during a 6-month follow-up period compared with patients presenting for other reasons.

ICD-10 codes used to identify adverse drug events in administrative data: a systematic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE To synthesize the evidence on the effect of a bolus dose of etomidate on adrenal function, mortality, and health services utilization compared with other induction agents used for rapid sequence intubation. METHODS We developed a systematic search strategy and applied it to 10 electronic bibliographic databases. We hand searched journals; reviewed conference proceedings, gray literature, and bibliographies of relevant literature; and contacted content experts for studies comparing a bolus dose of etomidate with other induction agents. Retrieved articles were reviewed and data were abstracted with standardized forms. Data were pooled with the random-effects model if at least 4 clinically homogenous studies of the same design reported the same outcome measure. All other data were reported qualitatively. RESULTS From 3,083 titles reviewed, 20 met our inclusion criteria. Pooled mean cortisol levels were lower in elective surgical patients induced with etomidate compared with those induced with other agents between 1 and 4 hours postinduction. The differences varied from 6.1 microg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4 to 9.9 microg/dL; P=.001) to 16.4 microg/dL (95% CI 9.7 to 23.1 microg/dL; P<.001). Two studies in critically ill patients reported significantly different cortisol levels up to 7 hours postinduction. None of the studies reviewed, nor our pooled estimate (odds ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60), showed a statistically significant effect on mortality. Only one study reported longer ventilator, ICU, and hospital lengths of stay in patients intubated with etomidate. CONCLUSION The available evidence suggests that etomidate suppresses adrenal function transiently without demonstrating a significant effect on mortality. However, no studies to date have been powered to detect a difference in hospital, ventilator, or ICU length of stay or in mortality.

Clinical decision rules to improve the detection of adverse drug events in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We synthesize the available evidence on the effect of ketamine on intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressures, neurologic outcomes, ICU length of stay, and mortality. METHODS We developed a systematic search strategy and applied it to 6 electronic reference databases. We completed a gray literature search and searched medical journals as well as the bibliographies of relevant articles. We included randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies that compared the effect of ketamine with another intravenous sedative in intubated patients and reported at least 1 outcome of interest. Two authors independently performed title, abstract, and full-text reviews, and abstracted data from all studies, using standardized forms. Data from randomized controlled trials and prospective studies were synthesized in a qualitative manner because the study designs, patient populations, reported outcomes, and follow-up periods were heterogeneous. We used the Jadad score and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality. RESULTS We retrieved 4,896 titles, of which 10 studies met our inclusion criteria, reporting data on 953 patients. One study was deemed at low risk of bias in all quality assessment domains. All others were at high risk in at least 1 domain. Two of 8 studies reported small reductions in intracranial pressure within 10 minutes of ketamine administration, and 2 studies reported an increase. None of the studies reported significant differences in cerebral perfusion pressure, neurologic outcomes, ICU length of stay, or mortality. CONCLUSION According to the available literature, the use of ketamine in critically ill patients does not appear to adversely affect patient outcomes.

Adherence to emergency department discharge prescriptions.

Background Adverse drug events, the unintended and harmful effects of medications, are important outcome measures in health services research. Yet no universally accepted set of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) revision 10 codes or coding algorithms exists to ensure their consistent identification in administrative data. Our objective was to synthesize a comprehensive set of ICD-10 codes used to identify adverse drug events. Methods We developed a systematic search strategy and applied it to five electronic reference databases. We searched relevant medical journals, conference proceedings, electronic grey literature and bibliographies of relevant studies, and contacted content experts for unpublished studies. One author reviewed the titles and abstracts for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors reviewed eligible full-text articles and abstracted data in duplicate. Data were synthesized in a qualitative manner. Results Of 4241 titles identified, 41 were included. We found a total of 827 ICD-10 codes that have been used in the medical literature to identify adverse drug events. The median number of codes used to search for adverse drug events was 190 (IQR 156–289) with a large degree of variability between studies in the numbers and types of codes used. Authors commonly used external injury (Y40.0–59.9) and disease manifestation codes. Only two papers reported on the sensitivity of their code set. Conclusions Substantial variability exists in the methods used to identify adverse drug events in administrative data. Our work may serve as a point of reference for future research and consensus building in this area.

The effect of early in-hospital medication review on health outcomes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES Adverse drug events (ADEs) are unintended and harmful consequences of medication use. They are associated with high health resource use and cost. Yet, high levels of inaccuracy exist in their identification in clinical practice, with over one-third remaining unidentified in the emergency department (ED). The study objective was to derive clinical decision rules (CDRs) that are sensitive for the detection of ADEs, allowing their systematic identification early in a patients hospital course. METHODS This was a prospective observational cohort study carried out in two Canadian tertiary care hospitals. Participants were adults presenting to the ED having ingested at least one prescription or over-the-counter medication within 2 weeks. Nurses and physicians evaluated patients for standardized clinical findings. A second evaluator performed interobserver assessments of predictor variables in a subset of patients. Pharmacists, who were blinded to the predictor variables, evaluated all patients for ADEs. An independent committee reviewed and adjudicated cases where the ADE assessment was uncertain or the pharmacists diagnosis differed from the physicians working diagnosis. The primary outcome was an ADE that required a change in medical therapy, diagnostic testing, consultation, or hospital admission. CDRs were derived using kappa coefficients, chi-square statistics, and recursive partitioning. RESULTS Among 1,591 patients, 131 (8.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.0% to 9.7%) were diagnosed with the primary outcome. The following variables were associated with ADEs and were used to derive two CDRs: 1) presence of comorbid conditions, 2) antibiotic use within 7 days, 3) medication changes within 28 days, 4) age ≥ 80 years, 5) arrival by ambulance, 6) triage acuity, 7) recent hospital admission, 8) renal failure, and 9) use of three or more prescription medications. The more sensitive rule had a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI = 91.8% to 98.6%) and required 40.8% (95% CI = 37.7% to 42.9%) of patients to have medication review. The more specific rule had a sensitivity 90.8% (95% CI = 81.4% to 95.7%) and required 28.3% of patients to proceed to medication review. CONCLUSIONS The authors derived CDRs that identified patients with ADEs with high sensitivity. These rules may improve the identification of ADEs early in a patients hospital course while limiting the number of patients requiring a detailed medication review.

Evaluating adverse drug event reporting in administrative data from emergency departments: a validation study

OBJECTIVE Nonadherence to prescribed medication is associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as the increased use of health services. The main objective of our study was to assess the incidence of prescription-filling and medication adherence in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). METHODS This was a prospective, observational study carried out at a Canadian tertiary care ED with an annual census of 69 000. We enrolled a convenience sample of patients being discharged with a prescription. We queried a provincial prescription-dispensing database 2 weeks later to determine whether prescriptions had been filled. We used a standardized follow-up interview to assess adherence and whether or not the patient experienced an adverse drug-related event (ADRE) or an unplanned revisit to an ED or clinic. RESULTS Of the 301 patients who agreed to participate, follow-up was successful for 258 (85.7%). Fifty-one patients (19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.4%-25.1%) failed to fill their discharge prescriptions and 104 (40.3%, 95% CI 34.5%-46.4%) did not adhere to 1 or more medications. Antibiotics were associated with a lower odds ratio (OR) of nonadherence (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.52). There was a trend toward increasing nonadherence in patients who reported an ADRE (OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.98-3.48) or had 2 or more medications coprescribed (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.95-3.09). There was also a trend toward a higher risk of a revisit to an ED or clinic in nonadherent patients (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.94-3.25). CONCLUSION Approximately 4 in 10 patients discharged from the ED did not adhere to his or her prescribed medication. Our results suggest that patients who are prescribed antibiotics are more likely to be adherent, and that further evaluation of the associations between nonadherence, ADREs, the coprescription of 2 or more medications and the use of health services is warranted.