Adverse Drug Events in Adult Patients Leading to Emergency Department Visits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) occurring in the community and treated in emergency departments (EDs) have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, severity, and preventability of ADEs in patients presenting at EDs in 2 university-affiliated tertiary care hospitals in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on a stratified random sample (n = 1458) of adults (> or =18 y) who presented to EDs from January 1 to December 31, 2005. Prior to the chart review, the sample frame was developed by first eliminating visits that were clearly not the result of an ADE. The ED summary of each patient was initially reviewed by 2 trained reviewers in order to identify probable ADEs. All eligible charts were subsequently reviewed by a clinical team, consisting of 2 pharmacists and 2 ED physicians, to identify ADEs and determine their severity and preventability. RESULTS: Of the 1458 patients presenting to the 2 EDs, 55 were determined to have an ADE or a possible ADE (PADE). After a sample-weight adjustment, the prevalence of ADEs/PADEs was found to be 2.4%. Prevalence increased with age (0.7%, 18-44 y; 1.9%, 45-64 y; 7.8%, > or =65 y) and the mean age for patients with ADEs was higher than for those with no ADEs (69.9 vs 63.8 y; p < 0.01). A higher number of comorbidities and medications was associated with drug-related visits. Approximately 29% of the ADEs/PADEs identified were considered to be preventable, with 42% requiring hospitalization. Cardiovascular agents (37.4%) were the most common drug class associated with ADEs/PADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Adult ADE-related ED visits are frequent in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in many cases are preventable. Further efforts are needed to reduce the occurrence of preventable ADEs leading to ED visits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".