Search

Drug-related problems (DRPs), i.e., adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors (MEs), constitute a serious threat to the patient’s safety. DRPs are often insufficiently captured by clinical routine documentation, and thus, they frequently remain unaddressed. The aim of this study was to assess the coverage and usability of the new 11th revision of the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) to document DRPs. We refined the ‘Quality and Safety Algorithm’ from the ICD-11 Reference Guide and used it for DRP reporting to code 100 different anonymized DRPs (50 ADRs and 50 MEs) in a German hospital. The ICD-11 three-part model consisting of harm, cause, and mode was used whenever they were applicable. Of 50 ADRs, 15 (30.0%), such as drug-induced osteoporosis, were fully classifiable and codable by the ICD-11, whereas 35 (70.0%), such as drug-induced hypokalaemia, could not be fully classified due to sanctioning rules preventing the postcoordination (i.e., a combination of specific codes, such as drug and diagnosis). However, coding without the loss of information was possible in the 35 of these 35 (100.0%) ADR cases when we were deviating from the cluster code order of the Reference Guide. In all 50 MEs, the mode could be encoded, but for none of the MEs, postcoordination, i.e., the assignment of the ME to a specific drug, was allowed. In conclusion, the ICD-11 three-part model enables us to acquire more detailed documentation of DRPs than the previous ICD versions did. However, the codability, documentation, and reporting of DRPs could be significantly improved by simple modifications of the current ICD-11 sanctioning rules and by the addition of new ICD-11 codes.

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Mit der zunehmenden Anzahl eingenommener Arzneimittel steigt die Prävalenz von Medikationsrisiken. Hierzu zählen beispielsweise Arzneimittelwechselwirkungen, welche erwünschte und unerwünschte Wirkungen einzelner Arzneistoffe reduzieren aber auch verstärken können. Fragestellung Das Verbundvorhaben POLAR (POLypharmazie, Arzneimittelwechselwirkungen und Risiken) hat das Ziel, mit Methoden und Prozessen der Medizininformatikinitiative (MII) auf Basis von „Real World Data“ (stationärer Behandlungsdaten von Universitätskliniken) einen Beitrag zur Detektion von Medikationsrisiken bei Patient:innen mit Polymedikation zu leisten. Im Artikel werden die konkreten klinischen Probleme dargestellt und am konkreten Auswertebeispiel illustriert. Material und Methoden Konkrete pharmakologische Fragestellungen werden algorithmisch abgebildet und an 13 Datenintegrationszentren in verteilten Analysen ausgewertet. Eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für die Anwendung dieser Algorithmen ist die Kerndatensatzstruktur der MII, die auf internationale IT-, Interoperabilitäts- und Terminologiestandards setzt. Ergebnisse In POLAR konnte erstmals gezeigt werden, dass stationäre Behandlungsdaten standortübergreifend auf der Basis abgestimmter, interoperabler Datenaustauschformate datenschutzkonform für Forschungsfragen zu arzneimittelbezogenen Problemen nutzbar gemacht werden können. Schlussfolgerungen Als Zwischenstand in POLAR wird ein erstes vorläufiges Ergebnis einer Analyse gezeigt. Darüber hinaus werden allgemeinere technische, rechtliche, kommunikative Chancen und Herausforderungen dargestellt, wobei der Fokus auf dem Fall der Verwendung stationärer Behandlungsdaten als „Real World Data“ für die Forschung liegt.

Aims Automated checks for medication‐related problems have become a cornerstone of medication safety. In many clinical settings medication checks remain confined to drug–drug interactions because only medication data are available in an adequately coded form, leaving possible contraindicated drug–disease combinations unaccounted for. Therefore, we devised algorithms that identify frequently contraindicated diagnoses based on medication patterns related to these diagnoses. Methods We identified drugs that are associated with diseases constituting common contraindications based on their exclusive use for these conditions (such as allopurinol for gout or salbutamol for bronchial obstruction). Expert‐based and machine learning algorithms were developed to identify diagnoses based on highly specific medication patterns. The applicability, sensitivity and specificity of the approach were assessed by using an anonymized real‐life sample of medication and diagnosis data excerpts from 3506 discharge records of geriatric patients. Results Depending on the algorithm, the desired focus (i.e., sensitivity vs. specificity) and the disease, we were able to identify the diagnoses gout, epilepsy, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure and bronchial obstruction with a specificity of 44.0–99.8% (95% CI 41.7–100.0%) and a sensitivity of 3.8–83.1% (95% CI 1.0–86.1%). Using only medication data, we were able to identify 123 (51.3%) of 240 contraindications identified by experts with access to medication data and diagnoses. Conclusion This study provides a proof of principle that some key diagnosis‐related contraindications can be identified based on a patient's medication data alone, while others cannot be identified. This approach offers new opportunities to analyse drug–disease contraindications in community pharmacy or clinical routine data.