PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Malavika Govindan
AU  - Aricca D Van Citters
AU  - Eugene C Nelson
AU  - Jane Kelly-Cummings
AU  - Gautham Suresh
TI  - Automated detection of harm in healthcare with information technology: a systematic review
AID  - 10.1136/qshc.2009.033027
DP  - 2010 Oct 01
TA  - Quality and Safety in Health Care
PG  - e11--e11
VI  - 19
IP  - 5
4099  - http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/19/5/e11.short
4100  - http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/19/5/e11.full
SO  - Qual Saf Health Care2010 Oct 01; 19
AB  - Context To improve patient safety, healthcare facilities are focussing on reducing patient harm. Automated harm-detection methods using information technology show promise for efficiently measuring harm. However, there have been few systematic reviews of their effectiveness.Objective To perform a systematic literature review to identify, describe and evaluate effectiveness of automated inpatient harm-detection methods.Methods Data sources included MEDLINE and CINAHL databases indexed through August 2008, extended by bibliographic review and search of citing articles. The authors included articles reporting effectiveness of automated inpatient harm-detection methods, as compared with other detection methods. Two independent reviewers used a standardised abstraction sheet to extract data about automated and comparison harm-detection methods, patient samples and events identified. Differences were resolved by discussion.Results From 176 articles, 43 articles met inclusion criteria: 39 describing field-defined methods, two using natural language processing and two using both methods. Twenty-one studies used automated methods to detect adverse drug events, 10 detected general adverse events, eight detected nosocomial infections, and four detected other specific adverse events. Compared with gold standard chart review, sensitivity and specificity of automated harm-detection methods ranged from 0.10 to 0.94 and 0.23 to 0.98, respectively. Studies used heterogeneous methods that often were flawed.Conclusion Automated methods of harm detection are feasible and some can potentially detect patient harm efficiently. However, effectiveness varied widely, and most studies had methodological weaknesses. More work is needed to develop and assess these tools before they can yield accurate estimates of harm that can be reliably interpreted and compared.