PMID- 11499859
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20011211
LR  - 20161124
IS  - 1053-8569 (Print)
IS  - 1053-8569 (Linking)
VI  - 10
IP  - 2
DP  - 2001 Mar-Apr
TI  - Prospective cohort study of adverse events monitored by hospital pharmacists. 
      Hospital Adverse Event Monitoring Study (HAEMS) Group.
PG  - 95-103
AB  - PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of pharmacist-led intensive hospital 
      monitoring of adverse events (AEs) associated with newly marketed drugs. 
      SUBJECTS/SETTING: 303 patients admitted to Southampton Hospitals who were 
      prescribed selected newly marketed drugs during their inpatient stay in 1998. 
      METHODS: Prospective observational study. Patients were identified from 
      computerized pharmacy records, clinical pharmacist ward rounds, dispensary 
      records or via nursing staff. The pharmacist reviewed medical notes and recorded 
      AEs, suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and reasons for stopping drugs. 
      OUTCOMES: Incidence of AEs, ADRs; proportionate agreement between the physician's 
      and pharmacist's event recording. RESULTS: 303 patients were monitored. Of the 
      patients taking newly marketed drugs 92% were identifiable using pharmacy 
      computer systems and pharmacist ward visits. There were 21 (7%) suspected ADRs 
      detected during this pilot study. The types of adverse events detected were 
      broadly similar to those identified by general practice-based prescription event 
      monitoring. However, biochemical changes featured more frequently than in general 
      practice. Differences between adverse events recorded by pharmacist and physician 
      were systematic and attributed to differences in event coding. CONCLUSION: 
      Pharmacist-led monitoring in a typical NHS hospital setting was effective at 
      detecting ADRs in newly marketed drugs. However, this effort might have been 
      substantially less time-consuming and more effective were electronic patient 
      records (EPRs) available. Pharmacy computer systems are not designed to be 
      patient focused and are therefore unable to identify patients taking newly 
      marketed drugs. It is argued that future EPR and computerised patient-specific 
      prescribing systems should be designed to capture this data in the same way as 
      some US systems are currently able to do.
FAU - Emerson, A
AU  - Emerson A
AD  - Pharmacy Department, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton 
      General Hospital, UK.
FAU - Martin, R M
AU  - Martin RM
FAU - Tomlin, M
AU  - Tomlin M
FAU - Mann, R D
AU  - Mann RD
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - England
TA  - Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
JT  - Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety
JID - 9208369
SB  - IM
MH  - Computers
MH  - Data Collection/methods
MH  - Drug Monitoring/*methods
MH  - *Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
MH  - Humans
MH  - National Health Programs
MH  - Pharmacy Service, Hospital/*organization & administration
MH  - Prospective Studies
MH  - United Kingdom
EDAT- 2001/08/14 10:00
MHDA- 2002/01/05 10:01
CRDT- 2001/08/14 10:00
PHST- 2001/08/14 10:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2002/01/05 10:01 [medline]
PHST- 2001/08/14 10:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1002/pds.574 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2001 Mar-Apr;10(2):95-103. doi: 10.1002/pds.574.