J Am Med Inform Assoc 8:254-266 doi:10.1136/jamia.2001.0080254
  • Original Investigation
  • Research Paper

Using Computerized Data to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Outpatients

  1. Benjamin Honigman,
  2. Joshua Lee,
  3. Jeffrey Rothschild,
  4. Patrice Light,
  5. Russell M Pulling,
  6. Tony Yu,
  7. David W Bates
  1. Affiliations of the authors: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado (BH); Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (JL, JR, TY, DWB); Post-graduate Institute for Medicine, Englewood, Colorado (PL); ProCard, Inc., Golden, Colorado (RMP)
  1. Correspondence and reprints: Benjamin Honigman, MD, Division of Emergency Medicine, B-215, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, Denver, CO 80262; e-mail: <benjamin.honigman{at}>
  • Received 28 July 2000
  • Accepted 28 December 2000


Objective To evaluate the use of a computer program to identify adverse drug events (ADEs) in the ambulatory setting and to evaluate the relative contribution of four computer search methods for identifying ADEs, including diagnosis codes, allergy rules, computer event monitoring rules, and text searching.

Design Retrospective analysis of one year of data from an electronic medical record, including records for 23,064 patients with a primary care physician, of whom 15,665 actually came for care.

Measurement Presence of an ADE; sensitivity and specificity of computer searches for ADE.

Results The computer program identified 25,056 incidents, which were associated with an estimated 864 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 750–978) ADEs. Thus, the ADE rate was 5.5 (CI, 5.2–5.9) per 100 patients coming for care. Furthermore, in 79 (CI, 68–89) ADEs, the patient required hospitalization, resulting in an estimated rate of 3.4 (CI, 2.7–4.3) admissions per 1,000 patients. The sensitivity of the search methods for identifying ADEs was estimated to be 58 (CI, 18–98) percent, and the estimated specificity was 88 (CI, 87–88) percent. The positive predictive value was 7.5 (CI, 6.5–8.5) percent, and the negative predictive value was 99.2 (CI, 95.5–99.98) percent. Compared with age and gender-matched controls with no positive screen, patients with ADEs had twice as many outpatient visits and were taking nearly three times as many drugs. Antihypertensives, ACE-inhibitors, antibiotics, and diuretics were associated with 56 (CI, 47–65) percent of ADEs. Among ADEs, 23 (CI, 16–32) percent were lifethreatening or serious, and 38 (CI, 29–47) percent were judged preventable.

Conclusion Computerized search programs can detect ADEs, and free-text searches were especially useful. Adverse drug events were frequent, and admissions were not rare, although most hospitals today do not identify them. Thus, such detection programs demonstrate “value-added” for the electronic record and may be useful for directing and assessing the impact of quality improvement efforts.


  • This work was supported by a grant from Micromedex, Inc.,

Free Sample

This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JAMIA.
View free sample issue >>

Access policy for JAMIA

All content published in JAMIA is deposited with PubMed Central by the publisher with a 12 month embargo. Authors/funders may pay an Open Access fee of $2,000 to make the article free on the JAMIA website and PMC immediately on publication.

All content older than 12 months is freely available on this website.

AMIA members can log in with their JAMIA user name (email address) and password or via the AMIA website.

Navigate This Article