Optimizing adverse drug reaction detection with Trigger Tool informatization

Authors

  • Cássio Alexandre Oliveira Rodrigues Departamento de Farmácia - Centro de Ciências da Saúde - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil. Farmácia - Hospital Unimed, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil.
  • Haline Tereza Matias de Lima Costa Farmácia - Hospital Unimed, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil.
  • Edineide da Costa Pereira Fulco Farmácia - Hospital Unimed, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil.
  • Rand Randall Martins Departamento de Farmácia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil. Professor titular no Departamento de Farmácia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59681/2175-4411.v15.i1.2023.984

Keywords:

Pharmacovigilance, Health Informatics, Patient Safety

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impacts that the informatization of the triggers used in the active investigation process of adverse drug reaction (ADR) promoted to a pharmacovigilance service. Methodology: Observational and retrospective study with dispensing data of drugs classified as "triggers" in electronic medical records, who has computerized health information system (HIS) generated reports containing data from the patient and the drug dispensed to him, eliminating the manual investigation step. Results: The was a 48.5% increase in the monthly average of ADR identification and reporting in the institution when compared to the periods before informatization. This increase, however, occurred without requiring an increase in human resources, as well as a reduction in the time used for the execution of the process. Conclusion: The results show the relevance that HIS can confer to pharmacovigilance services, allowing to improve the accuracy of the active ADR detection methodology, reduce the time for execution of the work process, and optimize work logistics.

References

Jha A, Pronovost P. Toward a safer health care system: the critical need to improve measurement. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1831-2.

Agbabiaka TB, Lietz M, Mira JJ, Warner B. A literature-based economic evaluation of healthcare preventable ad-verse events in Europe. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(1):9-18.

Agrizzi AL, Pereira LC, Figueira PHM. Non-voluntary detection method of adverse drug reactions in oncologic patients. Rev Bras Farm Hosp Serv Saúde. 2013;4(1):6–11.

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(3):194–200.

Cano FG, Rozenfeld S. Adverse Drug Events in Hospi-tals: A Systematic Review. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(3):S360–S372.

Mevik K, Hansen TE, Deilkas EC, Ringdal AM, Vonen B. Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using au-tomatic trigger identification valid when measuring ad-verse events? Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(7):535–540.

Musy SN, Ausserhofer D, Schwendimann R, Rothen HU, Jeitziner MM, Rutjes AW et al. Trigger tool-based automated adverse event detection in electronic health records: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):e198.

Stockwell DC, Kirkendall E, Muething SE, Kloppen-borg E, Vinodrao H, Jacobs BR. Automated adverse event detection collaborative: electronic adverse event identification, classification, and corrective actions across academic pediatric institutions. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(4):203–10.

Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Leap L, Shea B, Rittemberg E, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: de-velopment of a computer-based monitor and compari-son with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5(3):305–14.

Lemon V, Stockwell DC. Automated detection of ad-verse events in children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2012;59(6):1269–78.

World Health Organization. WHO. International drug monitoring: the role of national centres. Report of a WHO meeting. World Health Organization technical re-port series. 1972;498:1–25.

Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, et al. A Method For Estimating The Prob-ability Of Adverse Drug Reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30(2):239–45.

Khan LM, Al-Harthi SE, Osman AM, Sattar MA, Ali AS. Dilemmas of the causality assessment tools in the diag-nosis of adverse drug reactions. Saudi Pharm J. 2016;24(4):485-93.

Comfort S, Dorrell D, Meireis S, Fine J. MOdifiedNA-Ranjo Causality Scale for ICSRs (MONARCSi): A Deci-sion Support Tool for Safety Scientists. Drug Saf. 2018;41(11):1073-1085.

Shukla AK, Jhaj R, Misra S, Ahmed SN, Nanda M, Chaudhary D. Agreement between WHO-UMC causality scale and the Naranjo algorithm for causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10(9): 3303–3308.

Santos TO, Pereira LP, Silveira DT. Implementation of Health Information Systems: A Systematic Review. Reciis – Rev Eletron Comun Inf Inov Saúde. 2017;11(3):1–11.

Coleman JJ, Pontefract SK. Adverse drug reactions. Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(5):481-485.

Published

2023-06-19

How to Cite

Rodrigues, C. A. O., Costa, H. T. M. de L., Fulco, E. da C. P., & Martins, R. R. (2023). Optimizing adverse drug reaction detection with Trigger Tool informatization. Journal of Health Informatics, 15(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.59681/2175-4411.v15.i1.2023.984

Issue

Section

Original Articles

Similar Articles

<< < 16 17 18 19 20 21 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)