International prevalence of adverse drug events in hospitals: an analysis of routine data from England, Germany, and the USA

BMC Health Services Research

Jürgen Stausberg¹ 

[1] Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 München, Germany

关键词: Routine data;    Medication errors;    International classification of diseases;    Hospitals;    Adverse drug reaction reporting system;    Adverse drug event;   

Others  :  1133271
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-125

 received in 2013-04-03, accepted in 2014-03-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are frequent in hospitals, occurring either in patients before admission or as a nosocomial event, and either as a drug reaction or as a consequence of a medication error. Routine data primarily recorded for reimbursement purposes are increasingly being used on a national level both in pharmacoepidemiological studies and in trigger tools. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence rates of coded ADEs in hospitals on a transnational level.

Methods

Hospital data for England and the USA were obtained for the fiscal or calendar year 2006. German data for 2006 were accessed via teleprocessing with the Federal Statistical Office. The datasets from England and the USA were adapted to the German data. About 6 million (England), 7 million (USA), and 16 million (Germany) inpatients could be included. ADEs were identified through a list of codes used in the national diagnosis classifications.

Results

The overall prevalence rate (and 95% confidence interval, CI) of coded ADEs was 3.22% (3.20–3.23%) for England, 4.78% (4.73–4.83%) for Germany, and 5.64% (5.63–5.66%) for the USA. Most of the English ADE cases occurred in patients admitted as emergency. A non-surgical status and a longer length of stay were consistently associated with the occurrence of an ADE. Enterocolitis caused by Clostridium difficile was the most frequent ADE in all countries.

Conclusions

According to routine data, the overall ADE prevalence rates for England, Germany, and the USA are different. However, the differences are narrower than those determined from the rates of ADEs or adverse drug reactions inferred from prospective or retrospective pharmacoepidemiological studies. Since the ADEs in the countries examined in this study share several characteristics, the use of routine data for transnational research on ADEs is feasible.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Stausberg; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Nebeker JR, Barach P, Samore MH: Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinician's guide to terminology, documentation, and reporting. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140:795-801.
• [2]Iezzoni LI: Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:666-674.
• [3]Hodgkinson MR, Dirnbauer NJ, Larmour I: Identification of adverse drug reactions using the ICD-10 Australian Modification Clinical Coding Surveillance. J Pharm Pract Res 2009, 39:19-23.
• [4]Hougland P, Nebeker J, Pickard S, Van Tuinen M, Masheter C, Elder S, Williams S, Xu W: Using ICD-9-CM codes in hospital claims data to detect adverse events in patient safety surveillance. In Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches (Vol. 1: Assessment). Edited by Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
• [5]Stausberg J, Hasford J: Drug-related admissions and hospital-acquired adverse drug events in Germany: a longitudinal analysis from 2003 to 2007 of ICD-10-coded routine data. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:134. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK: Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12:194-200.
• [7]Pintor-Mármol A, Baena MI, Fajardo PC, Sabater-Hernández D, Sáez-Benito L, García-Cárdenas MV, Fikri-Benbrahim N, Azpilicueta I, Faus MJ: Terms used in patient safety related to medication: a literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012, 21:799-809.
• [8]Rottenkolber D, Hasford J, Stausberg J: Costs of adverse drug events in German hospitals - a microcosting study. Value Health 2012, 15:868-875.
• [9]Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Sweitzer BJ, Leape LL, for the Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group: The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA 1997, 277:307-311.
• [10]Drösler S, Romano P, Wei L: Health care quality indicators project: patient safety indicators report 2009. Health Working Papers No. 47. Paris: OECD; 2009.
• [11]Morimoto T, Gandhi TK, Seger AC, Hsieh TC, Bates DW: Adverse drug events and medication errors: detection and classification methods. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13:306-314.
• [12]The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care: Hospital activity (Hospital Episode Statistics - HES) 2012. [http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hes webcite]
• [13]HCUP, AHRQ: Introduction to the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2006. [http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/2006NIS_INTRODUCTION.pdf webcite]
• [14]Amann C, Hasford J, Stausberg J: Hospital admission due to adverse drug events (ADE): an analysis of German routine hospital data of 2006. Das Gesundheitswesen 2012, 74:639-644. [in German]
• [15]Stausberg J, Hasford J: Identification of adverse drug events: the use of ICD-10 coded diagnoses in routine hospital data. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010, 107:23-29.
• [16]Stausberg J, Kiefer E: Classification of Pressure Ulcers: A Systematic Literature Review. In Connecting Health and Humans. Proceedings of NI2009. The 10th International Congress on Nursing Informatics. Edited by Saranto K, Brennan PF, Park H-A, Tallberg M, Ensio A. Amsterdam: IOS; 2009:511-515.
• [17]Patel H, Bell D, Molokhia M, Srishanmuganathan J, Patel M, Car J, Majeed A: Trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England: analysis of national episode statistics 1998–2005. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2007, 7:9.
• [18]Waller P, Shaw M, Ho D, Shakir S, Ebrahim S: Hospital admissions for ‘drug-induced’ disorders in England: a study using the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) database. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004, 59:213-219.
• [19]Wu TY, Jen MH, Bottle A, Molokhia M, Aylin P, Bell D, Majeed A: Ten-year trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England 1999–2009. J R Soc Med 2010, 103:239-250.
• [20]van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, Kingma HJ, Stricker BHCH: Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalizations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Safety 2006, 29:161-168.
• [21]Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN: Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998, 279:1200-1205.
• [22]Azaouagh A, Stausberg J: Frequency of hospital-acquired pneumonia-comparison between electronic and paper-based patient records. Pneumologie 2008, 62:273-278. [in German]
• [23]Stausberg J, Kröger K, Maier I, Schneider H, Niebel W, for the interdisciplinary decubitus project: Pressure ulcers in secondary care: incidence, prevalence and relevance. Adv Skin Wound Care 2005, 18:140-145.
• [24]Hohl CM, Karpov A, Reddekopp L, Stausberg J: ICD-10 codes used to identify adverse drug events in administrative data: a systematic review. JAMIA 2013. Published Online First: 12 November 2013 doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002116
• [25]Hohl CM, Kuramoto L, Yu E, Rogula B, Stausberg J, Sobolev B: Evaluating adverse drug event reporting in administrative data from emergency departments: a validation study. BMC Health Serv Res 2013, 13:473. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Edwards IR, Aronson JK: Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis and management. Lancet 2000, 356:1255-1259.
• [27]Karson AS, Bates DW: Screening for adverse events. J Eval Clin Pract 1999, 5:23-32.
• [28]Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP: Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991, 266:2847-2851.