Characterization of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospital to Determine Potential Implications of Mandatory Reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong><br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Background:</strong> The Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act will eventu-ally require institutions to report all serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although the proposed regulations do not yet define what will need to be reported and by whom. Knowledge about the occurrence of serious ADRs in the hospital setting is needed to optimize the effectiveness of reporting and to determine the potential implications of mandatory reporting. <br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Objectives:</strong> To quantify and characterize suspected serious ADRs in patients admitted to a general medicine service, to assess the likelihood of causality, and to determine inter-rater agreement for identification of ADRs and assessment of their likelihood.<br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> This prospective observational study involved 60 consecutive patients admitted to a general medicine service at a tertiary care teaching centre starting on March 28, 2016. The primary outcome was the number of serious ADRs, defined by Health Canada as ADRs that result in hospital admission, congenital malformation, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or death; that are life-threatening; or that require significant intervention to prevent one of these outcomes. Medical records were reviewed independently by pairs of pharmacists for serious ADRs, and the likelihood of causality was assessed using the World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre system. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using the kappa score, and disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. <br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Twenty-three serious ADRs occurred in the sample of 60 patients. The proportion of patients experiencing a serious ADR that contributed to the original hospital admission was 19/60 (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20%–43%), and 4 patients (7%, 95% CI 0%–13%) experienced a serious ADR during their hospital stay. Inter-rater agreement for occurrence of serious ADRs was moderate (kappa 0.58, 95% CI 0.35–0.76).<br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Reportable serious ADRs were common among patients admitted to a general medicine service. Canadian hospitals would face difficulties reporting all serious ADRs because of the frequency of their occurrence and the subjectivity of their identification.</p><p><strong>RÉSUMÉ</strong></p><p><strong>Contexte :</strong> La Loi visant à protéger les Canadiens contre les drogues dangereuses obligera éventuellement les établissements à déclarer tout cas de réactions indésirables graves aux médicaments (RIM), quoique les rè-glements proposés n’indiquent pas encore ce qui devra être déclaré et par qui. Des données sur la survenue de RIM graves en milieu hospitalier sont nécessaires pour optimiser l’efficacité de la déclaration et pour déterminer les implications potentielles d’une déclaration obligatoire. <br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Objectifs</strong> : Quantifier les RIM graves soupçonnées chez les patients admis à un service de médecine générale et en offrir un portrait, évaluer la probabilité d’une relation de causalité et déterminer l’accord interévalua-teurs pour le repérage des RIM et l’évaluation de leur probabilité.<br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Méthodes :</strong> La présente étude observationnelle prospective comptait 60 patients admis consécutivement à partir du 28 mars 2016 à un service de médecine générale d’un centre hospitalier universitaire de soins tertiaires. Le principal paramètre d’évaluation était le nombre de RIM graves, définies par Santé Canada comme des RIM qui mènent à une hospitalisation, à une malformation congénitale, à une invalidité ou à une incapacité persistante ou importante; qui mettent la vie en danger ou entraînent la mort; ou qui nécessitent une intervention significative pour prévenir l’un de ces résultats. Les dossiers médicaux ont été examinés indépendamment par des paires de pharmaciens à la recherche de RIM graves et la probabilité d’une causalité a été évaluée à l’aide du système du Centre de pharmacovigilance d’Uppsala de l’Organisation mondiale de la Santé. L’accord interévaluateurs a été mesuré à l’aide du coefficient kappa et les désaccords ont été résolus par la discussion et l’atteinte d’un consensus. <br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Résultats :</strong> Vingt-trois RIM graves sont survenues dans l’échantillon composé de 60 patients. La proportion de patients ayant subi une RIM grave qui a contribué à l’hospitalisation initiale était 19/60 (32 %, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % de 20 %–43 %); de plus, 4 patients (7 %, IC de 95 % de 0 %–13 %) avaient subi une RIM grave au cours de leur séjour à l’hôpital. L’accord interévaluateurs sur la survenue de RIM graves était modéré (kappa = 0,58, IC de 95 % de 0,35–0,76).<br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Conclusion :</strong> Les RIM graves à déclaration obligatoire étaient courantes chez les patients admis à un service de médecine générale. Les hôpitaux canadiens auraient de la difficulté à déclarer tous les cas de RIM graves à cause de leur fréquence et de la subjectivité de leur repérage. </p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".