Validation of Four Clinical Indicators of Preventable Drug-Related Morbidity

Author:

Flanagan Priti S1,MacKinnon Neil J2,Bowles Susan K3,Kirkland Susan A4

Affiliation:

1. Priti S Flanagan PharmD, at time of writing, Research Fellow in Health Outcomes Management, College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; now, Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, Frail Seniors Program, Fraser Health Authority, Langley, BC, Canada

2. Neil J MacKinnon MScPharm PhD, Merck Frosst Chair of Patient Health Management, Associate Professor, College of Pharmacy, School of Health Services Administration, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University

3. Susan K Bowles PharmD, Associate Professor, College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University

4. Susan A Kirkland PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine; Clinical Research Scholar, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical indicators are tools that assess quality issues related to the use of medicines. At this time, validated clinical indicators for preventable drug-related morbidity (PDRM) are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity and reliability of using population administrative claims data to identify the extent of PDRM in older adults in Canada. METHODS: Four indicators of PDRM related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care were chosen for validation. A random sample of cases that represented the indicators and fit the criteria (hits) for PDRM from the retrospective operationalization of the study database and those that did not fit the criteria (near hits) were selected for chart review. One-page abstracts of the cases were prepared for review by a panel of 5 clinical pharmacists. Validity was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. Reliability was assessed using reviewers' agreement scores (κ statistics). RESULTS: Overall, 119 case abstracts were reviewed by each panelist. The sensitivity ranged from 33% to 100% and the specificity from 51% to 71%. Predictive values ranged from 5.3% to 43% (positive) and 90% to 100% (negative). The overall κ statistic was fair (0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The validity of the 4 assessed PDRM indicators varied. The reliability was fair; however, these indicators may be useful to screen older adults for PDRM.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology (medical)

Cited by 8 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3