4.6 Article

Surveillance of methadone-related adverse drug events using multiple public health data sources

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 382-389

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2006.10.004

关键词

methadone; adverse drug events; patient safety

资金

  1. NLM NIH HHS [T15LM07124] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Healthcare safety and quality surveillance is increasingly conducted by public health agencies. We describe a biomedical informatics method that uses multiple public health data sources to perform surveillance of methadone-related adverse drug events. Data from Utah medical examiner records, vital statistics, emergency department encounter administrative data and a database of controlled substances prescriptions are used to examine trends in state-wide adverse events related to methadone. From 1997 to 2004, population-adjusted methadone prescriptions increased 727%, with evidence to suggest the rise in the methadone prescription rate is for treatment of pain, not addiction therapy. During the same period of time, population adjusted, accidental methadone-related deaths in medical examiner data increased 1770%. Population adjusted methadone-related emergency department encounters rose 612% from 1997 to 2003. Our results suggest that the increase in methadone prescription rates from 1997 to 2004 was accompanied by a concurrent increase in methadone-related morbidity and mortality. Although patient data is not linked between data sources, our results demonstrate that utilizing multiple public health data sources captures more cases and provides more clinical detail than individual data sources alone. Our approach is a successful biomedical informatics approach for surveillance of adverse events and utilizes widely available public health data sources, as well as an emerging source of public health data, controlled substance prescription registries. (C) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据