Appl Clin Inform 2016; 07(03): 660-671
DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2016-03-RA-0031
Research Article
Schattauer GmbH

Use of Text Searching for Trigger Words in Medical Records to Identify Adverse Drug Reactions within an Intensive Care Unit Discharge Summary

Sandra L. Kane-Gill
1  University of Pittsburgh, School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Adam M. MacLasco
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Melissa I. Saul
3  University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Tiffany R. Politz Smith
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Megan A. Kloet
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Catherine Kim
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Ananth M. Anthes
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Pamela L. Smithburger
1  University of Pittsburgh, School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
,
Amy L. Seybert
1  University of Pittsburgh, School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA
2  UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA
› Author Affiliations
Funding Not obtained for this project.
Further Information

Correspondence to:

Sandra L. Kane-Gill, PharmD, MSc, FCCM, FCCP
University of Pittsburgh
School of Pharmacy 918 Salk Hall
3501 Terrace St.
Pittsburgh
PA 15261
Email: SLK54@pitt.edu   
Phone: 412-624-5150

Publication History

received: 14 March 2016

accepted: 08 June 2016

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

 

Summary

Purpose

To evaluate the performance of using trigger words (e.g. clues to an adverse drug reaction) in unstructured, narrative text to detect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and compare the use of these trigger words to a targeted chart review for ADR detection within the intensive care unit (ICU) discharge summary note.

Materials

A retrospective medical record review was conducted. Evaluation of ADRs occurred in two phases – targeted chart review of the ICU discharge summary notes in Phase 1 and targeted chart review using specific words and phrases as triggers for ADRs in Phase 2.

Results

Four hundred ADRs were documented in 223 patients for Phase 1. For Phase 2, there were 219 ADRs identified in 120 patients. 138 real or accurate ADRs were identified from Phase 1 and 47 duplicate events. 34 ADRs from Phase 2 were not identified in Phase 1. Fifteen of the ADRs were inaccurately presumed in Phase 2. Fifty-eight of 127 text triggers identified at least one ADR. Low and moderate frequency trigger words were more likely to have PPVs > 5%.

Conclusions

Targeted chart review using specific words and phrases as triggers for ADRs is a reasonable approach to identify ADRs and may save time compared to other methods after further refinement leads to a more accurately performing trigger word list.

Citation: Kane-Gill SL, MacLasco AM, Saul MI, Politz Smith TR, Kloet MA, Kim C, Anthes AM, Smithburger PL, Seybert AL. Use of text searching for trigger words in medical records to identify adverse drug reactions within an intensive care unit discharge summary.


#

 


#

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the research.


Correspondence to:

Sandra L. Kane-Gill, PharmD, MSc, FCCM, FCCP
University of Pittsburgh
School of Pharmacy 918 Salk Hall
3501 Terrace St.
Pittsburgh
PA 15261
Email: SLK54@pitt.edu   
Phone: 412-624-5150