Skip to main content
Log in

Incidence and Costs of Adverse Drug Reactions During Hospitalisation

Computerised Monitoring Versus Stimulated Spontaneous Reporting

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To implement a computer-based adverse drug reaction monitoring system and compare its results with those of stimulated spontaneous reporting, and to assess the excess lengths of stay and costs of patients with verified adverse drug reactions.

Design: A prospective cohort study was used to assess the efficacy of computer-based monitoring, and case-matching was used to assess excess length of stay and costs.

Setting: This was a study of all patients admitted to a medical ward of a university hospital in Germany between June and December 1997.

Patients and participants: 379 patients were included, most of whom had infectious, gastrointestinal or liver diseases, or sleep apnoea syndrome. Patients admitted because of adverse drug reactions were excluded.

Methods: All automatically generated laboratory signals and reports were evaluated by a team consisting of a clinical pharmacologist, a clinician and a pharmacist for their likelihood of being an adverse drug reaction. They were classified by severity and causality. For verified adverse drug reactions, control patients with similar primary diagnosis, age, gender and time of admission but without adverse drug reactions were matched to the cases in order to assess the excess length of hospitalisation caused by an adverse drug reaction.

Results: Adverse drug reactions were detected in 12% of patients by the computer-based monitoring system and stimulated spontaneous reporting together (46 adverse reactions in 45 patients) during 1718 treatment days. Computer-based monitoring identified adverse drug reactions in 34 cases, and stimulated spontaneous reporting in 17 cases. Only 5 adverse drug reactions were detected by both methods. The relative sensitivity of computer-based monitoring was 74% (relative specificity 75%), and that of stimulated spontaneous reporting was 37% (relative specificity 98%). All 3 serious adverse drug reactions were detected by computer-based monitoring, but only 2 out of the 3 were detected by stimulated spontaneous reporting. The percentage of automatically generated laboratory signals associated with an adverse drug reaction (positive predictive value) was 13%. The mean excess length of stay was 3.5 days per adverse drug reaction. 48% of adverse reactions were predictable and detected solely by computer-based monitoring. Therefore, the potential for savings on this ward from the introduction of computer-based monitoring can be calculated as EUR56 200/year ($US59 600/year) [1999 values].

Conclusion: Computer monitoring is an effective method for improving the detection of adverse drug reactions in inpatients. The excess length of stay and costs caused by adverse drug reactions are substantial and might be considerably reduced by earlier detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991; 324(6): 377–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events: implications for prevention: ADE Prevention Study Group [see comments]. JAMA 1995; 274(1): 29–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Levy M, Kletter-Hemo D, Nir I, et al. Drug utilization and adverse drug reactions in medical patients: comparison of two periods, 1969-72 and 1973-76. Isr J Med Sci 1977; 13(11): 1065–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hutchinson TA, Flegel KM, Kramer MS, et al. Frequency, severity and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in adult outpatients: a prospective study. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39(7): 533–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoigne R, Lawson DH, Weber E. Risk factors for adverse drug reactions - epidemiological approaches. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 39(4): 321–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Inman WH. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions [letter]. BMJ 1985; 290(6478): 1355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence ofadverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies [see comments]. JAMA 1998; 279(15): 1200–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hallas J, Harvald B, Gram LF, et al. Drug related hospital admissions: the role of definitions and intensity of data collection, and the possibility of prevention. J Intern Med 1990; 228(2): 83–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hallas J, Gram LF, Grodum E, et al. Drug related admissions to medical wards: a population based survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 33(1): 61–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Levy M, Kewitz H, Altwein W, et al. Hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions: a comparative study from Jerusalem and Berlin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 17(1): 25–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibanez L, Laporte JR, Carne X. Adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Drug Saf 1991; 6(6): 450–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality [see comments]. JAMA 1997; 277(4): 301–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, et al. Preventing adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28(4): 523–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Meyboom RH, Egberts AC, Edwards IR, et al. Principles of signal detection in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 1997; 16(6): 355–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schoenemann J, Munter KH, Enayati-Kashani S. Unwanted drug effects in clinical practice [in German]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1998; 123(15): 448–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5(3): 305–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson JG, Jay SJ, Anderson M, et al. Evaluating the potential effectiveness of using computerized information systems to prevent adverse drug events. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1997: 228–32

    Google Scholar 

  18. Levy M, Azaz-Livshits T, Sadan B, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: implementation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 54(11): 887–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. World Health Organization. International drug monitoring: the role of the hospital. WHO Tech Rep Ser 1969; No. 425

  20. Azaz-Livshits T, Levy M, Sadan B, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: pilot study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 309–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30(2): 239–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rieder MJ. Mechanisms of unpredictable adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 1994; 11(3): 196–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tegeder I, Levy M, Muth-Selbach U, et al. Retrospective analysis of the frequency and recognition of adverse drug reactions by means of automatically recorded laboratory signals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47(5): 557–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation manual for hospitals. Chicago: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 1991

  25. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients [erratum JAMA 1992; 267 (14): 1922] [see comments]. JAMA 1991; 266(20): 2847–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group [see comments]. JAMA 1997; 277(4): 307–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Moore N, Briffaut C, Noblet C, et al. Indirect drug-related costs [letter]. Lancet 1995; 345(8949): 588–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Evans RS, Classen DC, Stevens LE, et al. Using a hospital information system to assess the effects of adverse drug events. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1993: 161–5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Dr M. Meyer, Institute of Medical Statistics, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, for his help in statistical analysis. This research was supported by grants from BMBF, no. 01 EC 9403.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harald Dormann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dormann, H., Muth-Selbach, U., Krebs, S. et al. Incidence and Costs of Adverse Drug Reactions During Hospitalisation. Drug-Safety 22, 161–168 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200022020-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200022020-00007

Keywords

Navigation