RESUMO
PURPOSE: Using clinical administrative data (CAD) of inpatients, we aimed to identify ICD-10 codes coding for potentially preventable inhospital adverse drug events (ADE) that affect the length of hospital stay (LOS) and thus patient well-being and cost. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed CAD of all inpatient stays in 2012 of a German university hospital. Predefined ICD-10 codes indicating ADE (ADE codes) were further specified based on expert ratings of the ADE mechanism and ADE preventability in clinical routine to particularly identify preventable inhospital ADE. In a propensity-matched cohort design, we compared patients with one or more ADE codes to control patients with regard to differences in LOS for three situations: all cases with an ADE code, cases with an inhospital ADE code, and cases with a preventable inhospital ADE code. RESULTS: Out of 54 032 cases analysed, in 8.3% (N=4 462) at least one ADE code was present. Nine of 128 evaluated ADE codes were rated as preventable in clinical routine, relating to 220 inpatients (4.9% of all identified inpatients with at least one ADE code and 0.4% of the entire cohort, respectively). Out of 48 072 evaluable inpatients for propensity score matching, 7 938 controls without ADE code and 4 006 cases with ADE code were selected. In all three settings, cases showed prolonged LOS vs controls (delta 1.13 d; 0.88 d and 1.88 d, respectively), significantly exceeding the maximum LOS as defined for each Diagnosis-Related Group. CONCLUSION: Inpatients with ADE codes referring to inhospital, potentially preventable ADE exceeded the maximum hospital stay fully reimbursed by insurance companies, indicating unnecessary long and costly inpatient stays.
Assuntos
Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/epidemiologia , Hospitalização , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Alemanha/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pontuação de Propensão , Estudos Retrospectivos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Structured analyses of hospital administrative data may detect potentially preventable adverse drug events (ADE) and therefore are considered promising sources to prevent future harm and estimate cost savings. Whether results of these analyses indeed correspond to ADE that may be preventable in clinical routines needs to be verified. We exemplarily screened all adult inpatients admitted to a German University Hospital (n = 54,032) for International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) diagnoses coding for drug-induced kidney injury (AKI). In a retrospective chart review, we checked the coded adverse events (AE) for inhospital occurrence, causality to drug exposure, and preventability in all identified cases and calculated positive predictive values (ppv). We identified 69 inpatient cases of whom 41 cases (59.4%) experienced the AE in the hospital (ppv-range 0.43-0.80). Causality assessment revealed a rather likely causal relationship between AE and drug exposure in 11 cases (15.9, 11/69, ppv-range 0.17-0.22) whereby preventability measures could be postulated for seven cases (10.1%, 7/69). Focusing on drug-induced AKI, this study exemplarily underlines that ICD-10-code-based ADE prevention efforts are quite limited due to the small identification rate and its high proportion of primarily outpatient events. Furthermore, causality assessment revealed that cases are often too complex to benefit from generic prevention strategies. Thus, ICD-10-code-based calculations might overestimate patient harm and economic losses.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: At inpatient admission, the timeliness and completeness of the Germany-wide standardised medication list ("Bundeseinheitlicher Medikationsplan") often seems inappropriate. It is also unclear which characteristics of the lists increase the probability of discrepancies. METHODS: A total of 100 medication lists of elective patients of a surgical clinic were retrospectively evaluated with regard to potential discrepancies compared to the standardised medication reconciliation. The discprepancies were assigned to 7 categories: drug taken is missing on the list, drug on the list is no longer taken, strength or dosage is missing at the list or is incorrect, or the documented dosage form is different. Advice on patient safety, involved drugs and dosage forms were also recorded. Multivariate analyses were used to investigate the influence of the timeliness, number of drugs and issuing medical specialty of the lists on the type and number of discrepancies. RESULTS: Compared to the medication reconciliation, 78â% (78/100) of the lists showed discrepancies. A total of 226 deviations (2.3â±â0.6 deviations/list) were documented. Most often, a drug was missing from the list (nâ=â103). Of all recommendations, 64â% (83/177) concerned the perioperative management of anticoagulants (nâ=â55) and antidiabetics (nâ=â28), corresponding to 62â% (62/100) of the lists. In the multivariate analysis, only the risk of incorrect information on strength and dosage increased significantly with the age of the lists (pâ=â0.047) and was more than twice as high when the list was more than one month old. CONCLUSIONS: The timeliness, completeness and aspects of patient safety must be comprehensively validated. Medication lists that are older than 1 month should be checked particularly critically with regard to information on strength and dosage and the plan should be updated accordingly at regular intervals.