Biomedical subjects

D W Bates

Publications and source records attributed to D W Bates.

147 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

The impact of the Internet on quality measurement.

Consumers are eager for information about health. However, their use of such data has been limited to date. When consumers do consider data in making health care choices, they rely more on word-of-mouth reputation than on traditional quality measures, although this information has not necessarily been readily accessible. The Internet changes the exercise of quality measurement in several ways. First, quality information--including reputation--will be more readily available. Second, consumers will increasingly use it. Third, the Internet provides a low-cost, standard platform that will make it vastly easier for providers to collect quality information and pass it on to others. However, major barriers still stand in the way of public access to quality information on the Internet as well as of having that access actually improve patients' care.

Advertising↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Appropriateness of antiepileptic drug level monitoring.

OBJECTIVES: To develop explicit, reliable appropriateness criteria for antiepileptic drug level monitoring and to assess the appropriateness of monitoring in one tertiary care institution. DESIGN: Appropriateness criteria derived from the literature and through expert opinion were used to evaluate a stratified random sample of antiepileptic drug level determinations obtained from chart review. SETTING: Tertiary care center performing more than 10,000 antiepileptic drug level determinations per year. PATIENTS: A total of 330 inpatients in whom antiepileptic drug levels were measured a total of 855 times. METHODS: Drug levels were assessed at least 200 times for each of four antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and valproic acid). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of antiepileptic drug levels with an appropriate indication and, of those, the proportion sampled appropriately. RESULTS: Overall, 27% (95% confidence interval, 24% to 30%) of levels had an appropriate indication. Interrater agreement for appropriateness was substantial (kappa = 0.61). There was no significant difference in the appropriateness rate among the four drugs (range, 25% to 29%). Of the 624 antiepileptic drug level determinations considered inappropriate (73%), only four (0.6%) were more than 20% higher than the upper limit of normal, and none of the four patients had clinical signs of drug toxicity. A median of six levels (range, one through 69) was determined per patient, and the median interval between level determinations was 24 hours. Of the 27% of level determinations with an appropriate indication, 51% were sampled correctly, resulting in an overall appropriateness rate of 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Only 27% of antiepileptic drug level determinations had an appropriate indication, and half of these were not sampled correctly. Routine daily monitoring without pharmacological justification accounted for most of the inappropriate drug level determinations. Efforts to decrease inappropriate monitoring may result in substantial cost reductions without missing important clinical results.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the additional resource utilization associated with an adverse drug event (ADE). DESIGN: Nested case-control study within a prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort included 4108 admissions to a stratified random sample of 11 medical and surgical units in 2 tertiary-care hospitals over a 6-month period. Cases were patients with an ADE, and the control for each case was the patient on the same unit as the case with the most similar pre-event length of stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postevent length of stay and total costs. METHODS: Incidents were detected by self-report stimulated by nurses and pharmacists and by daily chart review, and were classified as to whether they represented ADEs. Information on length of stay and charges was obtained from billing data, and costs were estimated by multiplying components of charges times hospital-specific ratios of costs to charges. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 247 ADEs among 207 admissions. After outliers and multiple episodes were excluded, there were 190 ADEs, of which 60 were preventable. In paired regression analyses adjusting for multiple factors, including severity, comorbidity, and case mix, the additional length of stay associated with an ADE was 2.2 days (P=.04), and the increase in cost associated with an ADE was $3244 (P=.04). For preventable ADEs, the increases were 4.6 days in length of stay (P=.03) and $5857 in total cost (P=.07). After adjusting for our sampling strategy, the estimated postevent costs attributable to an ADE were $2595 for all ADEs and $4685 for preventable ADEs. Based on these costs and data about the incidence of ADEs, we estimate that the annual costs attributable to all ADEs and preventable ADEs for a 700-bed teaching hospital are $5.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial costs of ADEs to hospitals justify investment in efforts to prevent these events. Moreover, these estimates are conservative because they do not include the costs of injuries to patients or malpractice costs.

Boston↗