ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Clinical evaluation of the ADE scorecards as a decision support tool for adverse drug event analysis and medication safety management.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating EHR-Integrated Digital Technologies for Medication-Related Outcomes and Health Equity in Hospitalised Adults: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Systematic Review of Medical Informatics-Supported Medication Decision Making.Biomedical informatics insights · 2017Review
- A 2014 medical informatics perspective on clinical decision support systems: do we hit the ceiling of effectiveness?Yearbook of medical informatics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe prevention of adverse drug events (ADEs) demands co-ordination of different health care professionals. ADE scorecards are a novel approach to raise the team awareness regarding ADE risks and causes. It makes information on numbers and on possible causes of possible ADE cases available to the clinical team. The aim of the study was to investigate the usage and acceptance of ADE scorecards by healthcare professionals and their impact on rates of possible ADEs.
methodsADE scorecards were introduced in three departments of a French hospital. A controlled time series analysis of ADE data was conducted to assess the impact of the ADE scorecards. In addition, qualitative interviews and a standardized survey with all participating staff members were performed.
resultsPhysicians, nurses and pharmacists found ADE scorecards effective to increase medication safety and recommended future usage. The time-series analysis did not show changes in rates of possible ADEs.
conclusionADE scorecards appear to be useful to raise awareness of ADE-related issues among professionals. Although the evaluation did not show significant reductions of ADE rates, the participating physicians, nurses and pharmacists believed that the ADE scorecards could contribute to increased patient safety and to a reduction in ADE rates. Strategies need to be designed to integrate ADE scorecards better into the clinical routine and to increase the precision of ADE detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.