DOCSLIB.ORG

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting P T Chapter 40 Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Lee B. Murdaugh, RPh, PhD The Conditions of Participation standards of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the standards of accrediting organizations such as The Joint Commission, the Healthcare Facilities Accredi- tation Program (HFAP), and the National Integrated Accreditation for Healthcare Organizations (NIAHOSM) require hospitals to identify and report adverse drug reactions (ADRs). These ADRs must be reported to LEARNING OBJECTIVES patients’ attending physicians and the hospital’s quality assessment and performance improvement program. Additionally, hospitals are expected to report serious • Define an adverse drug reaction. ADRs (as defined by the Food and Drug Administration • Discuss the detection of adverse [FDA]) to the FDA’s MedWatch program and ADRs to vaccines to the FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting drug reactions. System (VAERS). • Discuss the assessment of adverse drug reactions. Defining Adverse Drug Reactions To recognize and assess ADRs, there must be a defini- tion of what constitutes an ADR. Examples of commonly used definitions are discussed in the following text. The FDA defines a serious adverse reaction as one in which “the patient outcome is death, life threat- ening (real risk of dying), hospitalization (initial or prolonged), disability (significant, persistent, or perma- nent), congenital anomaly, or required intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage.”1 The American Society of Health-System Pharma- cists (ASHP) defines a ADR as “any unexpected, unin- tended, undesired, or excessive response to a drug that • requires discontinuing the drug (therapeutic or diagnostic) • requires changing the drug therapy • requires modifying the dose (except for minor dosage adjustments) • necessitates admission to a hospital 546 Competence Assessment Tools for Health-System Pharmacies • prolongs stay in a healthcare facility routine observation and assessment. Inclusion of an • necessitates supportive treatment individual sign or symptom will depend on the defini- tion of an ADR at the specific institution. • significantly complicates diagnosis • negatively affects prognosis or Surveillance Systems • results in temporary or permanent harm, disability, There are three types of surveillance systems that may 2 or death.” be used to detect ADRs: The ASHP definition includes allergic reactions (an 1. Prospective immunologic hypersensitivity response to a drug) and 2. Concurrent idiosyncratic reactions (an abnormal response to a drug 3. Retrospective that is specific to an individual). ASHP excludes the following from this definition: Identifying which methods to use will depend on the unique characteristics of a facility. However, ADRs are • Drug withdrawal more likely to be detected when a combination of • Drug-abuse syndromes surveillance systems are used. It should be noted that • Accidental poisonings the success of any surveillance system depends on • Drug overdose complications the willing participation of healthcare professionals in reporting ADRs. • Side effects PROSPECTIVE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM A side effect is defined as an “expected, well-known reaction resulting in little or no change in patient Prospective surveillance occurs prior to initiation of management” that occurs with a “predictable medication therapy and can be accomplished in two frequency and whose intensity and occurrence are ways: related to the size of the dose.”2 1. Monitoring of patients who are at a high risk for experiencing ADRs The World Health Organization (WHO) defines an —Risk factors for ADRs include the following: ADR as “any response to a drug, which is noxious and unintended, and which occurs at doses used in man • Polypharmacy for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy or for modifica- • Extremes of age (e.g., neonatal, pediatric, and tion of physiologic function.”3 The definition excludes geriatric patients) cases attributed to drug abuse or overdose (intended • Presence of concurrent disease states (e.g., or unintended). impaired renal or hepatic function) Karch and Lasagna define an ADR as “any response • Severity of illness to a drug that is noxious and unintended and that • History of allergy/previous ADR occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis, • Pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic changes diagnosis, or therapy, excluding failure to accomplish the intended purpose.”4 In addition to the exclusions 2. Monitoring of patients who are receiving medica- of the WHO definition, this definition also excludes tions known to have a high potential for causing therapeutic failures. ADRs—The drug classes most frequently impli- cated in ADRs include the following: Review appropriate policies and procedures to identify the definition used by your organization. • Anticoagulants (e.g., heparin and warfarin) • Antimicrobials (e.g., penicillins, cephalospo- Detection of Adverse Drug Events rins, sulfa antibiotics, and aminoglycosides) • Antineoplastics Signs and Symptoms • Cardiac agents (e.g., antiarrhythmics, digoxin, Signs and symptoms of ADRs are many and varied and diuretics, and antihypertensives) may be similar to signs and symptoms of disease states • Central nervous system (CNS) agents (e.g., or medical conditions. Table 40-1 contains some of analgesics, anticonvulsants, and sedatives/ the common signs and symptoms of ADRs (grouped hypnotics) by body systems) that may be seen in patients during • Diagnostic agents (e.g., contrast media) Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting 547 TABLE 40-1. Signs and Symptoms of ADRs by Body System Body System Examples Body System Examples Cardiovascular • Arrhythmias Hematological • Bleeding • Angina • Increased eosinophils • Hypertension • Increased PT and PTT • Hypotension • Decreased WBC, RBC, HCT, and • Bradycardia platelets • Tachycardia Hepatic • Hepatitis Dermatological • Rash • Jaundice • Itching • Increased AST, ALT, and LDH • Erythema Musculoskeletal • Arthritis • Hives • Joint pain • Phlebitis • Myalgia • Bruising Neurological • Headache • Petechiae • Tremor • Ecchymosis • Seizures • Drowsiness/somnolence Endocrine/metabolic • Hyperglycemia • Vertigo • Hypoglycemia • Altered vision • Sexual dysfunction • Movement disorders (e.g., • Hypothyroidism dyskinesia, akathisia, tardive ENT/oral • Altered taste dyskinesia) • Stomatitis • Depression • Thrush • Confusion • Tinnitus • Agitation • Hearing loss • Psychosis Reproductive • Fetal hemorrhage • Hallucinations • Fetal respiratory depression Renal • Bladder spasms • Teratogenesis • Oliguria Electrolyte • Hyperkalemia • Increased BUN or creatinine homeostasis • Hypokalemia • Renal failure • Hypernatremia Respiratory • Wheezing • Hypocalcemia • Increased or decreased respirations Gastrointestinal • Diarrhea • Constipation ALT = alanine transaminase; AST = aspartate aminotransferase; BUN = blood urea nitrogen; ENT = ear, nose, throat; • Nausea/vomiting HCT = hematocrit; LDH = lactate dehydrogenase; • Hemorrhage PT = prothrombin time; PTT = partial thromboplastin time; RBC = red blood cell; WBC = white blood cell. Generalized • Anaphylaxis • Fever • Skin reaction • Angioedema 548 Competence Assessment Tools for Health-System Pharmacies • Antidiabetic agents (including insulin) • Flumazenil • Sodium polystyrene • Corticosteroids sulfonate (SPS) The major advantage of prospective surveillance • Protamine • Antidiarrheals is that it is the most sensitive and specific method for (e.g., loperamide, detecting ADRs.5 However, it has a significant disad- colestipol) vantage in that it is very labor intensive and involves • Nitroglycerin • Antiemetics continuous monitoring. Prospective surveillance (e.g., hydroxyzine, systems are best accomplished through the use of prochlorperazine) decentralized pharmacists and/or utilization review • Physostigmine • Glucocorticosteroids personnel. (e.g., methylprednisolone) CONCURRENT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM Alerting orders also include nonroutine orders for Concurrent surveillance involves the identification of laboratory tests, such as the following: ADRs close to the time they occur. There are several methods that can be used to detect ADRs concurrently: • BUN • Clostridium difficile • Spontaneous reporting of ADRs by primary care • AST, ALT • Guaiac test practitioners (such as physicians and nurses) during • PT, PTT, platelet • Serum creatinine the course of their work using telephone hotlines, count ADR alert cards, report forms, etc. • Drug serum • Urine protein, cells, • Analysis of medication usage evaluation (MUE) concentration casts studies • Reporting of suspected ADRs by hospital utilization Usually, a combination of orders gives the phar- review/quality assurance personnel from their macist the best clue that an ADR may have occurred. concurrent review of patient charts Table 40-2 includes examples of combination alerting orders and the corresponding possible ADR. • Monitoring of orders and patient charts by phar- macy personnel for clues (often called triggers) Concurrent surveillance has the advantage of that an ADR has occurred allowing a more thorough investigation because the patient, nurse, and physician are available for inter- Triggers include the following: views and are likely to recollect events more accurately. ͷ Abnormal test results such as serum drug Also, this method allows interventions and manage- concentrations above therapeutic levels and ment of the ADR to take place in a timely manner. laboratory test results outside a particular range or threshold (e.g., platelet count less RETROSPECTIVE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.06.20055715; this version posted April 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . 1 Mo%on Sifnos: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study demonstra%ng the effec%veness of tradipitant in the treatment of mo%on sickness Vasilios M. Polymeropoulos*1, Mark É. Czeisler1#a, Mary M. Gibson1¶, Aus%n A. Anderson1¶, Jane Miglo1#b, Jingyuan Wang1, Changfu Xiao1, Christos M. Polymeropoulos1, Gunther Birznieks1, Mihael H. Polymeropoulos1 1 Vanda Pharmaceu%cals, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America #a The Ins%tute for Breathing and Sleeping, Aus%n Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia #b College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America *Corresponding author Email: [email protected] (VMP) ¶These authors contributed equally to this work. NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.06.20055715; this version posted April 11, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . 2 Abstract Background Novel therapies are needed for the treatment of mo%on sickness given the inadequate relief, and bothersome and dangerous adverse effects of currently approved therapies.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverse Drug Reactions Sample Chapter
    Sample copyright Pharmaceutical Press www.pharmpress.com 5 Drug-induced skin reactions Anne Lee and John Thomson Introduction Cutaneous drug eruptions are one of the most common types of adverse reaction to drug therapy, with an overall incidence rate of 2–3% in hos- pitalised patients.1–3 Almost any medicine can induce skin reactions, and certain drug classes, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antibiotics and antiepileptics, have drug eruption rates approaching 1–5%.4 Although most drug-related skin eruptions are not serious, some are severe and potentially life-threatening. Serious reac- tions include angio-oedema, erythroderma, Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Drug eruptions can also occur as part of a spectrum of multiorgan involvement, for example in drug-induced sys- temic lupus erythematosus (see Chapter 11). As with other types of drug reaction, the pathogenesis of these eruptions may be either immunological or non-immunological. Healthcare professionals should carefully evalu- ate all drug-associated rashes. It is important that skin reactions are identified and documented in the patient record so that their recurrence can be avoided. This chapter describes common, serious and distinctive cutaneous reactions (excluding contact dermatitis, which may be due to any external irritant, including drugs and excipients), with guidance on diagnosis and management. A cutaneous drug reaction should be suspected in any patient who develops a rash during a course of drug therapy. The reaction may be due to any medicine the patient is currently taking or has recently been exposed to, including prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, herbal or homoeopathic preparations, vaccines or contrast media.
    [Show full text]
  • Infection of the CNS by Scedosporium Apiospermum After Near Drowning
    205 CASE REPORT J Clin Pathol: first published as 10.1136/jcp.2003.8680 on 27 January 2004. Downloaded from Infection of the CNS by Scedosporium apiospermum after near drowning. Report of a fatal case and analysis of its confounding factors P A Kowacs, C E Soares Silvado, S Monteiro de Almeida, M Ramos, K Abra˜o, L E Madaloso, R L Pinheiro, L C Werneck ............................................................................................................................... J Clin Pathol 2004;57:205–207. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2003.8680 from the usual 15 days to up to 130 days. This type of This report describes a fatal case of central nervous system infection causes granulomata or abscesses and neutrophilic pseudallescheriasis. A 32 year old white man presented with meningitis.125 headache and meningismus 15 days after nearly drowning in a swine sewage reservoir. Computerised tomography and ‘‘In cases secondary to aspiration after near drowning, magnetic resonance imaging of the head revealed multiple once in the bloodstream, fungi seed into several sites but brain granulomata, which vanished when steroid and broad develop mainly in the central nervous system’’ spectrum antimicrobial and antifungal agents, in addition to dexamethasone, were started. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis To date, few cases of CNS pseudallescheriasis have been 2 disclosed a neutrophilic meningitis. Treatment with antibiotics described. However, such a diagnosis must should always be sought in individuals who have suffered near drowning in and amphotericin B, together with fluconazole and later standing polluted streams, ponds of water or sewage, or pits itraconazole, was ineffective. Miconazole was added with manure. through an Ommaya reservoir, but was insufficient to halt The case of a man who acquired a CNS P boydii infection the infection.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverse Events After Immunisation- Common and Uncommon
    Adverse events following Immunisation Common and Uncommon Dr Anna Clarke National Immunisation Office September 2016 www.immunisation.ie Abbreviations • ADR-adverse drug reaction • AE- adverse event • AEFI-adverse event following immunisation • SAE- serious adverse event • SUSAR-suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction Definitions • Adverse Drug Reaction – A response to a drug which is noxious and unintended, …occurs at doses normally used for the prophylaxis,.. or therapy of disease, … • Adverse Event – Any untoward medical occurrence that may present during treatment with a pharmaceutical product but which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment Definitions Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) Any untoward medical occurrence which follows immunisation and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the usage of the vaccine. The adverse event may be any unfavourable or unintended sign, abnormal laboratory finding, symptom or disease. AEFI 1. Loose definition to encourage reporting - does not restrict type of event - does not limit the time after immunisation - events, not reactions, are reported 2. Belief that immunisation was responsible may be correct, incorrect, or impossible to assess 3. Does not imply causality AEFIs Mild Reactions – Common – Include pain, swelling, fever, irritability, malaise – Self-limiting, seldom requiring symptomatic treatment But - important to inform parents about such events so they know about them Serious Adverse Event • Fatal • Life-threatening •
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Page I
    CHAPTER 5 BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION PAGE I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5-3 II. Mechanisms of Radiation Damage ........................................................................................ 5-3 A. Direct Action .............................................................................................................. 5-3 B. Indirect Action ........................................................................................................... 5-3 III. Determinants of Biological Effects ........................................................................................ 5-4 A. Rate of Absorption ..................................................................................................... 5-5 B. Area Exposed ............................................................................................................. 5-5 C. Variation in Species and Individual Sensitivity ......................................................... 5-5 D. Variation in Cell Sensitivity ....................................................................................... 5-5 IV. The Dose-Response Curve ..................................................................................................... 5-6 V. Pattern of Biological Effects .................................................................................................. 5-7 A. Prodromal Stage ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) – Treatment of the Reduced Host Defense
    International Journal of General Medicine Dovepress open access to scientific and medical research Open Access Full Text Article REVIEW Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) – treatment of the reduced host defense Lars Heslet1 Background: The current radiation threat from the Fukushima power plant accident has prompted Christiane Bay2 rethinking of the contingency plan for prophylaxis and treatment of the acute radiation syndrome Steen Nepper-Christensen3 (ARS). The well-documented effect of the growth factors (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor [GM-CSF]) in acute radia- 1Serendex ApS, Gentofte; 2University of Copenhagen, tion injury has become standard treatment for ARS in the United States, based on the fact that Medical Faculty, Copenhagen; growth factors increase number and functions of both macrophages and granulocytes. 3 Department of Head and Neck Review of the current literature. Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology, Methods: Køge University Hospital, Køge, Results: The lungs have their own host defense system, based on alveolar macrophages. After Denmark radiation exposure to the lungs, resting macrophages can no longer be transformed, not even during systemic administration of growth factors because G-CSF/GM-CSF does not penetrate the alveoli. Under normal circumstances, locally-produced GM-CSF receptors transform resting macrophages into fully immunocompetent dendritic cells in the sealed-off pulmonary compartment. However, GM-CSF is not expressed in radiation injured tissue due to deferves- cence of the macrophages. In order to maintain the macrophage’s important role in host defense after radiation exposure, it is hypothesized that it is necessary to administer the drug exogenously in order to uphold the barrier against exogenous and endogenous infections and possibly prevent the potentially lethal systemic infection, which is the main cause of death in ARS.
    [Show full text]
  • Angioedema After Long-Term Use of an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor
    J Am Board Fam Pract: first published as 10.3122/jabfm.10.5.370 on 1 September 1997. Downloaded from BRIEF REPORTS Angioedema After Long-Term Use of an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Adriana]. Pavietic, MD Angioedema is an uncommon adverse effect of cyclobenzaprine, her angioedema was initially be­ angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhib­ lieved to be an allergic reaction to this drug, and itors. Its frequency ranges from 0.1 percent in pa­ it was discontinued. She was also given 125 mg of tients on captopril, lisinopril, and quinapril to 0.5 methylprednisolone intramuscularly. Her an­ percent in patients on benazepril. l Most cases are gioedema did not improve, and she returned to mild and occur within the first week of treat­ the clinic the following day. She was seen by an­ ment. 2-4 Recent reports indicate that late-onset other physician, who discontinued lisinopril, and angioedema might be more prevalent than ini­ her symptoms resolved within 24 hours. Mter her tially thought, and fatal cases have been de­ ACE inhibitor was discontinued, she experienced scribed.5-11 Many physicians are not familiar with more symptoms and an increased frequency of late-onset angioedema associated with ACE in­ palpitations, but she had no change in exercise hibitors, and a delayed diagnosis can have poten­ tolerance. A cardiologist was consulted, who pre­ tially serious consequences.5,8-II scribed the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan (initially at dosages of 25 mg/d and then Case Report 50 mg/d). The patient was advised to report any A 57-year-old African-American woman with symptoms or signs of angioedema immediately copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Angioedema, a Life-Threatening Adverse Reaction to ACE-Inhibitors
    DOI: 10.2478/rjr-2019-0023 Romanian Journal of Rhinology, Volume 9, No. 36, October - December 2019 LITERATURE REVIEW Angioedema, a life-threatening adverse reaction to ACE-inhibitors Ramona Ungureanu1, Elena Madalan2 1ENT Department, “Dr. Victor Babes” Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Bucharest, Romania 2Allergology Department, “Dr. Victor Babes” Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Romania ABSTRACT Angioedema with life-threatening site is one of the most impressive and serious reasons for presenting to the ENT doctor. Among different causes (tumors, local infections, allergy reactions), an important cause is the side-effect of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors drugs. ACE-inhibitors-induced angioedema is described to be the most frequent form of bradykinin- mediated angioedema presented in emergency and also one of the most encountered drug-induced angioedema. The edema can involve one or more areas of the head and neck region, the most affected being the face, the lips, the tongue, followed by the larynx, when it may determine respiratory distress and even death. There are no specific diagnosis tests available and the positive diagnosis of ACE-inhibitors-induced angioedema is an exclusion diagnosis. The authors performed a review of the most important characteristics of the angioedema caused by ACE-inhibitors and present their experience emphasizing the diagnostic algorithm. KEYWORDS: angioedema, ACE-inhibitors, hereditary angioedema, bradykinin, histamine. INTRODUCTION with secondary local extravasation of plasma and tissue swelling5,6. Angioedema (AE) is a life-threatening condition Based on this pathomechanism, the classification presented as an asymmetric, localised, well-demar- of angioedema comprises three major types: 1). cated swelling1, located in the mucosal and submu- bradykinin-mediated – with either complement C1 cosal layers of the upper respiratory airways.
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Study to Assess Outcomes of a Drug Allergy Clarification Service on a General Medicine Floor at a Local Community Hospital Crystal M
    Original Research PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH Pilot Study to Assess Outcomes of a Drug Allergy Clarification Service on a General Medicine Floor at a Local Community Hospital Crystal M. Deas, PharmD, BCPS1; C. Whitney White, PharmD, BCPS2 1Samford University, McWhorter School of Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacist, Cooper Green Mercy Health Services, Birmingham, AL 2University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS Abstract Purpose: Drug allergy documentation in the patient medical record varies in level of detail, and drug intolerances are often inappropriately documented as an allergy in the medical record. A pilot study was conducted to determine the impact of a pharmacy- led drug allergy clarification service. Methods: The pilot quality improvement service was implemented in Fall 2016. General medicine patients were identified through daily census reporting and the electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed within 72 hours of admission for documented drug allergies and/or intolerances. Patients were interviewed by a clinical pharmacist or a fourth year pharmacy student to determine a complete drug allergy and intolerance history. Results: A total of 55 patients were interviewed and received the pilot service. A drug allergy/intolerance was documented in EMR for 54.5% (n=30) of patients interviewed. Of those 30 patients, 96.6% (n=29) were noted to have at least one discrepancy between EMR documentation and patient interview. The primary discrepancy noted was drug allergies or intolerances documented in the EMR without a description of the reaction. Conclusion: A pharmacy-led drug allergy clarification service was effective in identifying and clarifying EMR documentation of patients’ drug allergies and intolerances.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviewer Guidance
    Reviewer Guidance Conducting a Clinical Safety Review of a New Product Application and Preparing a Report on the Review U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) February 2005 Good Review Practices Reviewer Guidance Conducting a Clinical Safety Review of a New Product Application and Preparing a Report on the Review Additional copies are available from: Office of Training and Communication Division of Drug Information, HFD-240 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 (Tel) 301-827-4573 http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) February 2005 Good Review Practices TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 II. GENERAL GUIDANCE ON THE CLINICAL SAFETY REVIEW .......................... 2 A. Introduction....................................................................................................................................2 B. Explanation of Terms ....................................................................................................................3 C. Overview of the Safety Review .....................................................................................................4 D. Differences in Approach to Safety and Effectiveness Data ........................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Neurocrit Care
    NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Neurocrit Care. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 10. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptPublished NIH-PA Author Manuscript in final edited NIH-PA Author Manuscript form as: Neurocrit Care. 2012 December ; 17(3): 441–467. doi:10.1007/s12028-012-9747-4. Brain Resuscitation in the Drowning Victim Alexis A. Topjian, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 7th floor, 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard, Suite 7C23, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA, [email protected] Robert A. Berg, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 7th floor, 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard, Suite 7C23, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA, [email protected] Joost J. L. M. Bierens, Maatschappij tot Redding van Drenkelingen, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, [email protected] Christine M. Branche, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/Centers for Disease Control, Washington, DC, USA, [email protected] Robert S. Clark, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, [email protected] Hans Friberg, Department of Intensive and Perioperative Care, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, [email protected]; Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, 221 85 Lund, Sweden Cornelia W. E. Hoedemaekers, Department of ICU, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, [email protected] Michael Holzer, Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20/6D, 1090 Vienna, Austria, [email protected] Laurence M. Katz, Department of Emergency Medicine, Neurosciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 101 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA, [email protected] Johannes T.
    [Show full text]
  • AHRQ Quality Indicators Fact Sheet
    AHRQ Quality Indicators Toolkit Fact Sheet on Inpatient Quality Indicators What are the Inpatient Quality Indicators? The Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs) include 28 provider-level indicators established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that can be used with hospital inpatient discharge data to provide a perspective on quality. They are grouped into the following four sets: • Volume indicators are proxy, or indirect, measures of quality based on counts of admissions during which certain intensive, high-technology, or highly complex procedures were performed. They are based on evidence suggesting that hospitals performing more of these procedures may have better outcomes. • Mortality indicators for inpatient procedures include procedures for which mortality has been shown to vary across institutions and for which there is evidence that high mortality may be associated with poorer quality of care. • Mortality indicators for inpatient conditions include conditions for which mortality has been shown to vary substantially across institutions and for which evidence suggests that high mortality may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of care. • Utilization indicators examine procedures whose use varies significantly across hospitals and for which questions have been raised about overuse, underuse, or misuse. Mortality for Selected Procedures and Mortality for Selected Conditions are composite measures that AHRQ established in 2008. Each composite is estimated as a weighted average, across a set of IQIs, of the ratio of a hospital’s observed rate (OR) to its expected rate (ER), based on a reference population: OR/ER. The IQI-specific ratios are adjusted for reliability before they are averaged, to minimize the influence of ratios that are high or low at a specific hospital by chance.
    [Show full text]