Cargando…

Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) being the most crucial part of hospital, where adverse drug reactions (ADRs) often go undetected. Trigger tools are proficient ADR detection methods, which have only been applied for retrospective surveillance. We did a prospective analysis to further refine the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pandya, Amee D, Patel, Kalan, Rana, Devang, Gupta, Sapna D, Malhotra, Supriya D, Patel, Pankaj
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32435095
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367
_version_ 1783534135122329600
author Pandya, Amee D
Patel, Kalan
Rana, Devang
Gupta, Sapna D
Malhotra, Supriya D
Patel, Pankaj
author_facet Pandya, Amee D
Patel, Kalan
Rana, Devang
Gupta, Sapna D
Malhotra, Supriya D
Patel, Pankaj
author_sort Pandya, Amee D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) being the most crucial part of hospital, where adverse drug reactions (ADRs) often go undetected. Trigger tools are proficient ADR detection methods, which have only been applied for retrospective surveillance. We did a prospective analysis to further refine the trigger tool application in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of ADRs and prospectively evaluate the importance of using trigger tools for their detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in the ED for the presence of triggers in patient records to monitor and report ADRs by applying the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) trigger tool methodology. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three medical records were analyzed randomly using 51 trigger tools, where triggers were found in 181 (39.09%) and ADRs in 62 (13.39%) patients. The prevalence of ADR was 13.39%. According to the World Health Organization (WHO)-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) causality scale, 47 (75.8%) were classified as probable and 15 (24.2%) as possible, wherein 39 (62.9%) were predictable and 8 (12.9%) were definitely preventable. Most common triggers were abrupt medication stoppage (34.98%), antiemetic use (25.91%), and time in ED >6 hours (17.49%). The positive predictive values (PPVs) of triggers such as international normalized ratio (INR) > 4 (p = 0.0384), vitamin K administration (p = 0.002), steroid use (p = 0.0001), abrupt medication stoppage (p = 0.0077), transfusion of blood or blood products (p = 0.004), and rash (p = 0.0042) showed statistically significant results, which make the event detection process more structured when these triggers are positive. Presence of five or more triggers has statistically significant chances of developing an ADR (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Trigger tool could be a viable method to identify ADRs when compared to the traditional ADR identification methods, but there is insufficient data on IHI tool and its use to identify ADRs in the general outpatient setting. Healthcare providers may benefit from better trigger tools to help them detect ADRs. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Pandya AD, Patel K, Rana D, Gupta SD, Malhotra SD, Patel P. Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(3):172–178.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7225762
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72257622020-05-20 Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units Pandya, Amee D Patel, Kalan Rana, Devang Gupta, Sapna D Malhotra, Supriya D Patel, Pankaj Indian J Crit Care Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) being the most crucial part of hospital, where adverse drug reactions (ADRs) often go undetected. Trigger tools are proficient ADR detection methods, which have only been applied for retrospective surveillance. We did a prospective analysis to further refine the trigger tool application in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of ADRs and prospectively evaluate the importance of using trigger tools for their detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in the ED for the presence of triggers in patient records to monitor and report ADRs by applying the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) trigger tool methodology. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three medical records were analyzed randomly using 51 trigger tools, where triggers were found in 181 (39.09%) and ADRs in 62 (13.39%) patients. The prevalence of ADR was 13.39%. According to the World Health Organization (WHO)-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) causality scale, 47 (75.8%) were classified as probable and 15 (24.2%) as possible, wherein 39 (62.9%) were predictable and 8 (12.9%) were definitely preventable. Most common triggers were abrupt medication stoppage (34.98%), antiemetic use (25.91%), and time in ED >6 hours (17.49%). The positive predictive values (PPVs) of triggers such as international normalized ratio (INR) > 4 (p = 0.0384), vitamin K administration (p = 0.002), steroid use (p = 0.0001), abrupt medication stoppage (p = 0.0077), transfusion of blood or blood products (p = 0.004), and rash (p = 0.0042) showed statistically significant results, which make the event detection process more structured when these triggers are positive. Presence of five or more triggers has statistically significant chances of developing an ADR (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Trigger tool could be a viable method to identify ADRs when compared to the traditional ADR identification methods, but there is insufficient data on IHI tool and its use to identify ADRs in the general outpatient setting. Healthcare providers may benefit from better trigger tools to help them detect ADRs. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Pandya AD, Patel K, Rana D, Gupta SD, Malhotra SD, Patel P. Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(3):172–178. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7225762/ /pubmed/32435095 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367 Text en Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pandya, Amee D
Patel, Kalan
Rana, Devang
Gupta, Sapna D
Malhotra, Supriya D
Patel, Pankaj
Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units
title Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units
title_full Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units
title_fullStr Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units
title_full_unstemmed Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units
title_short Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units
title_sort global trigger tool: proficient adverse drug reaction autodetection method in critical care patient units
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225762/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32435095
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367
work_keys_str_mv AT pandyaameed globaltriggertoolproficientadversedrugreactionautodetectionmethodincriticalcarepatientunits
AT patelkalan globaltriggertoolproficientadversedrugreactionautodetectionmethodincriticalcarepatientunits
AT ranadevang globaltriggertoolproficientadversedrugreactionautodetectionmethodincriticalcarepatientunits
AT guptasapnad globaltriggertoolproficientadversedrugreactionautodetectionmethodincriticalcarepatientunits
AT malhotrasupriyad globaltriggertoolproficientadversedrugreactionautodetectionmethodincriticalcarepatientunits
AT patelpankaj globaltriggertoolproficientadversedrugreactionautodetectionmethodincriticalcarepatientunits