Unplanned Rehospitalisation due to Medication Harm following an Acute Myocardial Infarction.

INTRODUCTION: The contribution of medication harm to rehospitalisation and adverse patient outcomes after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) needs exploration. Rehospitalisation is costly to both patients and the healthcare facility. Following an AMI, patients are at risk of medication harm as they are often older and have multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy. This study aimed to quantify and evaluate medication harm causing unplanned rehospitalisation after an AMI. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients discharged from a quaternary hospital post-AMI. All rehospitalisations within 18 months were identified using medical record review and coding data. The primary outcome measure was medication harm rehospitalisation. Preventability, causality, and severity assessments of medication harm were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1,564 patients experienced an AMI, and 415 (26.5%) were rehospitalised. Eighty-nine patients (5.7% of total population; 6.0% of those discharged) experienced a total of 101 medication harm events. Those with medication harm were older (p = 0.007) and had higher rates of heart failure (p = 0.005), chronic kidney disease (p = 0.046), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.037), and a prior history of ischaemic heart disease (p = 0.005). Gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury, and hypotension were the most common medication harm events. Forty percent of events were avoidable, and 84% were classed as "serious." Furosemide, antiplatelets, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were the most commonly implicated medications. The median time to medication harm rehospitalisation was 79 days (interquartile range: 16-200 days). CONCLUSION: Medication harm causes unplanned rehospitalisation in 5.7% of all AMI patients (1 in 17 patients; 6.0% of those discharged). The majority of harm was serious and occurred within the first 200 days of discharge. This study highlights that measures to attenuate the risk of medication harm rehospitalisation are essential, including post-discharge medication management.

Prevalence of risk factors for venous thromboembolism and aspirin resistance in Australian patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Aspirin is used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). However, its efficacy is unclear in patients with multiple VTE risk factors and at risk of aspirin resistance (AR). BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To determine the prevalence of risk factors for VTE and AR in patients after THA/TKA and to determine the relationship between risk factors and drugs prescribed for thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of elective-THA/TKA in six Australian hospitals over a 1-year period. Medical records were manually reviewed to determine demographics, thromboprophylaxis regimen and presence of risk factors. The relationship between individual and cumulative risk factors with the thromboprophylaxis regimen was determined. RESULTS: In total, 1011 patients were included with a mean (SD) age of 65.9 (±11.0) years, and 56.4% were female. The five most prevalent risk factors were obesity (59.1%), age ≥65 years (58.2%), hypertension (45.3%), dyslipidaemia (35.9%) and diabetes (19.7%). Most patients had ≥1 risk factor for VTE (93.6%) and AR (93.6%), with 49.0% and 35.0% having ≥3 concurrent VTE and AR risk factors, respectively. The only significant relationship between risk factors and drugs was diabetes (P < 0.01). Rivaroxaban was more commonly used as the number of concurrent VTE risk factors increased (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients had a high prevalence of VTE and AR risk factors, suggesting aspirin may not be beneficial in many patients. Only diabetes was linked to the selection of thromboprophylaxis. Patients who received rivaroxaban had a greater average number of VTE risk factors. Guidelines should promote individualised prescribing in higher-risk patients.

Behavioural outcomes of interprofessional education within clinical settings for health professional students: A systematic literature review.

Interprofessional education facilitates collaborative practice, which promotes high-quality patient care and patient safety. Interprofessional education (IPE) experiences within clinical settings provide an opportunity for the development of interprofessional collaborative practice competence. The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature evaluating interprofessional education for health professional students within clinical settings and summarize the behavioral outcomes. Databases searched were PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis Online, ERIC and PsycINFO. Full-text articles were independently screened by two reviewers and included if agreed. Outcomes were analyzed using Kirkpatrick's model modified for IPE. Studies with behavioral change outcomes were analyzed and synthesized using narrative methods. Included studies provided evidence that IPE experiences in clinical settings can enable students to develop and integrate interprofessional collaborative practice competencies, across diverse types of settings. Key tasks enabling students to achieve these learning outcomes included synchronous patient consultations, collaborative development of integrative health-care plans outside of patient consultations, and participation in socialization with health-care teams. There were limitations in the methodological design of the included studies, with limited use of comparator groups and validated tools, high usage of self-report data and serious risk of bias identified across all quantitative included studies. In conclusion, high-quality research designed to measure the construct of behavioral change is lacking. Such research could further investigate the key tasks in IPE experiences in clinical settings that are necessary for students to develop the range of required collaborative practice competencies and integrate these. This could provide clarification regarding if and how this could be achieved across different types of clinical placements.

Evaluation of two European risk models for predicting medication harm in an Australian patient cohort.

PURPOSE: To externally evaluate the performance of two European risk prediction models, for identifying patients at high-risk of medication harm, in an Australian hospital setting. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a pre-existing cohort study described in a recently published study by Falconer et al. (Br J Clin Pharmacol 87(3):1512-1524, 2021) describing the development of a predictive risk model for inpatient medication harm. We retrospectively extracted relevant variables using the electronic health records of general medical and geriatric patients admitted to a quaternary hospital, in Brisbane, over 6 months from July to December 2017. This dataset was used to externally evaluate the two European models, The Brighton Adverse Drug Reaction Risk (BADRI) model by Tangiisuran et al. and a risk model developed by Trivalle et al. The variables were entered into both models and the patients' risk of medication harm was calculated, and compared with actual patient outcomes. Predictive performance was evaluated by measuring area under the receiver operative characteristic (AuROC) curves. RESULTS: The Australian patient cohort included 1982 patients (median age 74 years), of which 136 (7%) patients experienced ≥ 1 medication harm event(s). External evaluation of the two European models identified that both the BADRI and the Trivalle models had reduced predictive performance in an Australian patient cohort, compared with their original studies (AuROC of 0.63 [95% CI: 0.58-0.68] and 0.60 [95% CI: 0.55-0.65], respectively). CONCLUSION: Neither model demonstrated sufficient discrimination to warrant further evaluation in our local setting. This is likely a result of variations between the development and the validation cohorts, and the change in healthcare systems over time, and highlights the need for an up-to-date and context-specific risk prediction model.

Platelet Function Assays for the Diagnosis of Aspirin Resistance.

Aspirin, an antiplatelet drug, is commonly used at low doses for numerous indications, including prophylaxis of cardiovascular, neurovascular, and venous thromboembolic events. Due to review articles suggesting that aspirin resistance may result in poorer outcomes, interest in assessing platelet function is increasing. Despite this, platelet function tests are rarely used as part of routine clinical practice and therefore, a basic understanding of these tests may be lacking. Although aspirin resistance can be categorized as clinical or laboratory resistance, determining laboratory resistance is the only way to determine resistance before treatment failure occurs. Therefore, knowledge of platelet assays to determine aspirin resistance is of importance. The following review aims to provide a framework for clinicians to understand the main principles of platelet function tests. This includes comparison of the most frequently used platelet assays to diagnose aspirin resistance, including the basic mechanism, methodology, reference ranges, inter-assay comparison, and their respective clinical considerations when using.

Interprofessional identity in clinicians: A scoping review.

Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) has been recognized as invaluable in delivering safe, high-quality patient care with finite resources. However, despite a decade of advances in interprofessional (IP) research, policy, and competency frameworks, IPCP does not always occur in practice. One reason may be the influence of a clinician's identity in an IP context. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the nature of IP identity in healthcare clinicians. The PRISMA framework was used to support a comprehensive search strategy and screening of 1746 articles. Inclusion criteria included original research, theses, and reviews, a primary focus on IP identity or professional identity (PI) in an IP team, and a focus on health professionals, including students transitioning to practice. Ninety-five papers met the eligibility criteria, though once charted, just four of the 95 papers focused on IP identity in clinicians. Three further papers examined shared team identity, 25 papers referred to, but did not focus on IP identity, and the remaining 63 papers explored PI in an IP team. While limited studies on clinician IP identity restrict conclusive findings, patterns were identified to direct further research on the nature of IP identity in clinicians. These include values and beliefs, individual and personal factors, profession and professional experience, education, socialization, context, leadership, and the process of IP identity development. While identity is undeniably central to being a clinician, the values, beliefs, attributes, and experiences that contribute to clinician IP identity, how clinician IP identity develops, and factors that influence IP identity remain unclear. The results of this review highlight the value of further investigation of the nature of IP identity, the interplay between PI and IP identity, and identity in an IP context.

Development and validation of the Adverse Inpatient Medication Event model (AIME).

AIMS: Medication harm has negative clinical and economic consequences, contributing to hospitalisation, morbidity and mortality. The incidence ranges from 4 to 14%, of which up to 50% of events may be preventable. A predictive model for identifying high-risk inpatients can guide a timely and systematic approach to prioritisation. The aim of this study is to develop and internally validate a risk prediction model for prioritisation of hospitalised patients at risk of medication harm. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in general medical and geriatric specialties at an Australian hospital over six months. Medication harm was identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) codes and the hospital's incident database. Sixty-eight variables, including medications and laboratory results, were extracted from the hospital's databases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop the final risk model. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AuROC) and clinical utility was determined using decision curve analysis. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1982 patients with median age 74 years, of which 136 (7%) experienced at least one adverse medication event(s). The model included: length of stay, hospital re-admission within 12 months, venous or arterial thrombosis and/or embolism, ≥ 8 medications, serum sodium < 126 mmol/L, INR > 3, anti-psychotic, antiarrhythmic and immunosuppressant medications, and history of medication allergy. Validation gave an AuROC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.74). Decision curve analysis identified that the AIME may be clinically useful to help guide decision making in practice. CONCLUSION: We have developed a predictive model with reasonable performance. Future steps include external validation and impact evaluation.

Reducing Medical Admissions and Presentations Into Hospital through Optimising Medicines (REMAIN HOME): a stepped wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether integrating pharmacists into general practices reduces the number of unplanned re-admissions of patients recently discharged from hospital. DESIGN, SETTING: Stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial in 14 general practices in southeast Queensland. PARTICIPANTS: Adults discharged from one of seven study hospitals during the seven days preceding recruitment (22 May 2017 - 14 March 2018) and prescribed five or more long term medicines, or having a primary discharge diagnosis of congestive heart failure or exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive face-to-face medicine management consultation with an integrated practice pharmacist within seven days of discharge, followed by a consultation with their general practitioner and further pharmacist consultations as needed. MAJOR OUTCOMES: Rates of unplanned, all-cause hospital re-admissions and emergency department (ED) presentations 12 months after hospital discharge; incremental net difference in overall costs. RESULTS: By 12 months, there had been 282 re-admissions among 177 control patients (incidence rate [IR], 1.65 per person-year) and 136 among 129 intervention patients (IR, 1.09 per person-year; fully adjusted IR ratio [IRR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52-1.18). ED presentation incidence (fully adjusted IRR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.94) and combined re-admission and ED presentation incidence (fully adjusted IRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) were significantly lower for intervention patients. The estimated incremental net cost benefit of the intervention was $5072 per patient, with a benefit-cost ratio of 31:1. CONCLUSION: A collaborative pharmacist-GP model of post-hospital discharge medicines management can reduce the incidence of hospital re-admissions and ED presentations, achieving substantial cost savings to the health system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001627448 (prospective).

Defining and classifying terminology for medication harm: a call for consensus.

PURPOSE: The multiplicity in terms and definitions of medication-related harm has been a long-standing challenge for health researchers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies. The purpose of this narrative review was to report the diversity of terms; compare definitions, classifications, and models describing medication harm; and suggest which may be useful in both clinical practice and the research setting. METHODS: A narrative review of key studies defining and/or classifying medication harm terminology was undertaken. RESULTS: This review found that numerous terms are used to describe medication harm, and that there is a lack of consistency in current definitions, classifications, and applications. This lack of consistency applied across clinical jurisdictions and regulatory terminologies. A number of limitations in current definitions and classifications were identified. These included the exclusion of key types of medication harm events, ambiguous wording, and a lack of clarity and consensus on subclassifications. In general, there was some overlap in key models from the literature and these were presented to describe similarities and differences. CONCLUSION: Without uniformity quantifying, comparing, combining, or extrapolating medication harm data, such as a rate of harm in a specific population, is a challenge for those involved in medication safety and pharmacovigilance. There is a pressing need for further discussion and international consensus on this topic. Adoption of standard descriptors by practitioner groups, regulatory and policy organisations would foster quality improvement and patient safety.

Systematic review of predictive risk models for adverse drug events in hospitalized patients.

AIM: An emerging approach to reducing hospital adverse drug events is the use of predictive risk scores. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise models developed for predicting adverse drug event risk in inpatients. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus databases were used to identify studies of predictive risk models for hospitalized adult inpatients. Studies had to have used multivariable logistic regression for model development, resulting in a score or rule with two or more variables, to predict the likelihood of inpatient adverse drug events. The Checklist for the critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) was used to critically appraise eligible studies. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Ten described the development of a new model, whilst one study revalidated and updated an existing score. Studies used different definitions for outcome but were synonymous with or closely related to adverse drug events. Four studies undertook external validation, five internally validated and two studies did not validate their model. No studies evaluated impact of risk scores on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adverse drug event risk prediction is a complex endeavour but could help to improve patient safety and hospital resource management. Studies in this review had some limitations in their methods for model development, reporting and validation. Two studies, the BADRI and Trivalle's risk scores, used better model development and validation methods and reported reasonable performance, and so could be considered for further research.

What are validated self-report adherence scales really measuring?: a systematic review.

AIMS: Medication non-adherence is a significant health problem. There are numerous methods for measuring adherence, but no single method performs well on all criteria. The purpose of this systematic review is to (i) identify self-report medication adherence scales that have been correlated with comparison measures of medication-taking behaviour, (ii) assess how these scales measure adherence and (iii) explore how these adherence scales have been validated. METHODS: Cinahl and PubMed databases were used to search articles written in English on the development or validation of medication adherence scales dating to August 2012. The search terms used were medication adherence, medication non-adherence, medication compliance and names of each scale. Data such as barriers identified and validation comparison measures were extracted and compared. RESULTS: Sixty articles were included in the review, which consisted of 43 adherence scales. Adherence scales include items that either elicit information regarding the patient's medication-taking behaviour and/or attempts to identify barriers to good medication-taking behaviour or beliefs associated with adherence. The validation strategies employed depended on whether the focus of the scale was to measure medication-taking behaviour or identify barriers or beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting patients to be adherent requires information on their medication-taking behaviour, barriers to adherence and beliefs about medicines. Adherence scales have the potential to explore these aspects of adherence, but currently there has been a greater focus on measuring medication-taking behaviour. Selecting the 'right' adherence scale(s) requires consideration of what needs to be measured and how (and in whom) the scale has been validated.

The adverse inpatient medication event and frailty (AIME-frail) risk prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Medication harm affects between 5 and 15% of hospitalised patients, with approximately half of the harm events considered preventable through timely intervention. The Adverse Inpatient Medication Event (AIME) risk prediction model was previously developed to guide a systematic approach to patient prioritisation for targeted clinician review, but frailty was not tested as a candidate predictor variable. AIM: To evaluate the predictive performance of an updated AIME model, incorporating a measure of frailty, when applied to a new multisite cohort of hospitalised adult inpatients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary Australian hospitals on patients discharged between 1st January and April 31, 2020. Data were extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) and clinical coding databases. Medication harm was identified using ICD-10 Y-codes and confirmed by senior pharmacist review of medical records. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) was calculated for each patient. Logistic regression analysis was used to construct a modified AIME model. Candidate variables of the original AIME model, together with new variables including HFRS were tested. Performance of the final model was reported using area under the curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: A total of 4089 patient admissions were included, with a mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of 64 years (±19 years), 2050 patients (50%) were males, and mean HFRS was 6.2 (±5.9). 184 patients (4.5%) experienced one or more medication harm events during hospitalisation. The new AIME-Frail risk model incorporated 5 of the original variables: length of stay (LOS), anti-psychotics, antiarrhythmics, immunosuppressants, and INR greater than 3, as well as 5 new variables: HFRS, anticoagulants, antibiotics, insulin, and opioid use. The AUC was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83) which was superior to the original model (AUC = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.65-0.74) with a sensitivity of 69%, specificity of 81%, positive predictive value of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10-0.17) and negative predictive value of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99). The DCA identified the model as having potential clinical utility between the probability thresholds of 0.05-0.4. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of a frailty measure improved the predictive performance of the AIME model. Screening inpatients using the AIME-Frail tool could identify more patients at high-risk of medication harm who warrant timely clinician review.

"Just working in a team was a great experience " - Student perspectives on the learning experiences of an interprofessional education program.

Interprofessional education (IPE) programs aim to improve collaboration between health- and social-care professionals and to optimize clinical outcomes. Such programs are complex to design, and evaluation of effectiveness is difficult. Combining qualitative and quantitative data may provide greater understanding of how a program affects participants and what aspects are influential on attitudes and behavior. This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis to explore undergraduate student perspectives on what attributes of a 4-week IPE program they considered contributed to a successful learning experience. Due to the fact that the students were not formally assessed, the realistic context of the activities and the quality of the facilitators created an environment where the students felt empowered to interact freely without fear of reproach. Learning the roles of other professions and their contribution to a healthcare team broadened the students' perspectives on healthcare and increased their sense of self-worth and pride in their professions. In addition, being able to identify the relevance of the learning experience to their future practice motivated the students. This information can be used to create optimal learning environments for facilitating the development of successful future healthcare teams.

Feasibility of a collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists working in general practices provide medication reviews with recommendations to general practitioners (GPs) to optimise medications. We describe a model where the pharmacist is empowered with increased responsibility to implement agreed recommendations through collaborative prescribing. AIM: To assess a collaborative pharmacist prescribing model incorporating increased pharmacist responsibility, for patients with chronic diseases in general practice. METHOD: This was a pre-test-post-test quasi experimental pilot study using a pharmacist embedded in three Australian general practices. A pharmaceutical care plan was developed with patients and their GP to identify drug related problems (DRPs). The pharmacist discussed recommendations to manage DRPs with the GP and implemented recommendations agreed by the GP and patient over the six-month study period. Outcome measures included acceptance and implementation rate of recommendations made by the pharmacist. RESULTS: The pharmacist made 135 recommendations to optimise medicine use of which 126 (93.3%) were accepted by the GP. There were 105 (83.3%) implemented by the end of the study of which the pharmacist implemented 62 (49.3%). CONCLUSION: Compared to other Australian studies using a general practice pharmacist model, this study suggested increased pharmacist responsibility through collaborative prescribing led to high acceptance and implementation rates of recommendations to manage DRPs.

The impact of hospital-based post-discharge pharmacist medication review on patient clinical outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Clinical pharmacists have been shown to identify and resolve medication related problems post-discharge, however the impact on patient clinical outcomes is unclear. Aims: To undertake a systematic review to identify, critically appraise and present the evidence on post-discharge hospital clinics that provide clinical pharmacist medication review; report the patient clinical outcomes measured; and describe the activities of the clinical pharmacist. Methods: Published studies evaluating a patient clinical outcome following a post-discharge hospital clinic pharmacy service were included. All studies needed a comparative design (intervention vs control or comparator). Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycnINFO, Web of Science, IPA and APAIS-Health databases were searched to identify studies. The type of clinic and the clinical pharmacist activities were linked to patient clinical outcomes. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included in the final analysis, 14 randomised controlled trials and 43 non-randomised studies. Three key clinic types were identified: post-discharge pharmacist review alone, inpatient care plus post-discharge review and post-discharge collaborative clinics. The three main outcome metrics identified were hospital readmission and/or representation, adverse events and improved disease state metrics. There was often a mix of these outcomes reported as primary and secondary outcomes. High heterogeneity of interventions and clinical pharmacist activities reported meant it was difficult to link clinical pharmacist activities with the outcomes reported. Conclusions: A post-discharge clinic pharmacist may improve patient clinical outcomes such as hospital readmission and representation rates. Future research needs to provide a clearer description of the clinical pharmacist activities provided in both arms of comparative studies.

A collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: Patient and general practitioner perceptions.

A collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: patient and general practitioner perceptions. Background: Pharmacists working in general practice settings are slowly emerging in Australia, with comprehensive medication reviews forming a large part of their role in optimising pharmaceutical care. In Australia, pharmacists are entirely reliant on general practitioners (GPs) accepting and implementing their recommendations to manage drug related problems (DRPs). The next step is a model where the pharmacist takes on responsibility for implementing some of their recommendations. Aim: To investigate patient and general practitioner perceptions of a collaborative model of care where the pharmacist has increased responsibility in assisting the general practitioner manage patients with chronic conditions. Method: Semi-structured, phone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients and GPs respectively. Data were transcribed by a professional transcription service, collated using NVivo 12 Plus and analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis. Provisional codes were generated and clustered into categories, from which themes were identified. Results: Eighteen interviews were conducted (12 patients, 6 GPs). Four themes were identified from the patient interview data: pharmacist attributes; acknowledgement of the impact of the pharmacist, understanding of the GP-pharmacist collaborative model; relationships with and attitudes towards medicines and health care providers. Four themes were identified from the general practitioner interview data: pharmacist attributes; relationships with pharmacists; impressions on collaboration; impressions of the pharmacist's recommendations. Patients' and GPs' perceptions of the collaborative model of care overall were positive, acknowledging the advantages of a patient-centred, interdisciplinary approach and the potential benefits to patients. Conclusion: The GP-pharmacist collaborative model was viewed favourably by patients and GPs, with some GPs articulating the value in the pharmacist's increased responsibility as they implemented some recommendations to manage DRPs.

Retrospective study of the prevalence and characteristics of adverse drug events in adults who present to an Australian emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the burden, on the ED, of harm from unintentional adverse drug events (ADEs) in the community. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study of 936 randomly selected presentations to a level 6 ED at a principal referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia, in November 2017. Clinical records were screened by a pharmacist, who identified suspected ADEs. All suspected ADEs and a random selection of presentations without ADEs were reviewed by an expert panel, which classified, by consensus: occurrence and type of ADE, contribution of ADE to presentation, severity of harm and preventability of presentation. Medication-related ED presentations (ADE-Ps) and potential ADEs were, respectively, defined as presentations directly attributable to an ADE, and medication events that occurred but did not cause the ED presentation. Descriptive data analysis was performed. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) age of patients was 40 (27-58) years, with 49.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.5-52.9) being male. The prevalences of ADE-Ps and potential ADEs were 9.2% (95% CI 7.5-11.3) and 5.0% (95% CI 3.8-6.6), respectively. The severity of harm was classified as 'death or likely permanent harm' in 4.7% (95% CI 0.2-9.1) of ADE-Ps, 'temporary harm' (89.5%, 95% CI 83.1-96.0) and 'minimal or no harm' (5.8%, 95% CI 0.9-10.8). Most (79.1%, 95% CI 70.5-87.7) ADE-Ps were preventable. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high burden on emergency care because of unintended medication harm in the community. Interventions to reduce such harm are likely to require a co-ordinated primary, acute and public healthcare response. The high proportion of presentations with potential ADEs indicates opportunity for harm mitigation in the ED.