Objective: To evaluate the use of a computer program to identify adverse dr
ug events (ADEs) in the ambulatory setting and to evaluate the relative con
tribution of four computer search methods for identifying ADEs, including d
iagnosis codes, allergy rules, computer event monitoring rules, and text se
arching.
Design: Retrospective analysis of one year of data from an electronic medic
al record, including records for 23,064 patients with a primary care physic
ian, of whom 15,665 actually came for care.
Measurement: Presence of an ADE; sensitivity and specificity of computer se
arches for ADE.
Results: The computer program identified 25,056 incidents, which were assoc
iated with an estimated 864 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 750-978)
ADEs. Thus, the ADE rate was 5.5 (CI, 5.2-5.9) per 100 patients coming for
care. Furthermore, in 79 (CI, 68-89) ADEs, the patient required hospitaliza
tion, resulting in an estimated rate of 3.4 (CI, 2.7-4.3) admissions per 1,
000 patients. The sensitivity of the search methods for identifying ADEs wa
s estimated to be 58 (CI, 18-98) percent, and the estimated specificity was
88 (CI, 87-88) percent. The positive predictive value was 7.5 (CI, 6.5-8.5
) percent, and the negative predictive value was 99.2 (CI, 95.5-99.98) perc
ent. Compared with age and gender-matched controls with no positive screen,
patients with ADEs had twice as many outpatient visits and were taking nea
rly three times as many drugs. Antihypertensives, ACE-inhibitors, antibioti
cs, and diuretics were associated with 56 (CI, 47-65) percent of ADEs. Amon
g ADEs, 23 (CI, 16-32) percent were life-threatening or serious, and 38 (CI
, 29-47) percent were judged preventable.
Conclusion: Computerized search programs can detect ADEs, and free-text sea
rches were especially useful. Adverse drug events were frequent, and admiss
ions were not rare, although most hospitals today do not identify them. Thu
s, such detection programs demonstrate "value-added" for the eledronic reco
rd and may be useful for directing and assessing the impact of quality impr
ovement efforts.