Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Screening for adverse events.

A S Karson¹, D W Bates

¹Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

|September 1, 1999

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Association of Pharmacist Interventions With Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events.

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety·2024

Same author

Drug allergies documented in electronic health records of a large healthcare system.

Allergy·2016

Same author

Physician Perceptions and Beliefs about Generating and Providing a Clinical Summary of the Office Visit.

Applied clinical informatics·2015

Same author

Health Information Technology and Care Coordination: The Next Big Opportunity for Informatics?

Yearbook of medical informatics·2015

Same author

Task analysis of information technology-mediated medication management in outpatient care.

British journal of clinical pharmacology·2015

Same author

Predicting bacteraemia in validated models--a systematic review.

Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases·2015

Same journal

Evaluating Restraint and Seclusion as Care Processes Rather Than Compliance Metrics.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026

Same journal

Burden in Informal Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients With Pressure Injuries: Perceived Social Support and Influencing Factors Care Burden in Palliative Caregivers.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026

Same journal

Organisational Problems, Role Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Emergency Department Workers: A Multicenter Mixed-Effects Study.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026

Same journal

Highlighting a Systemic Bias in the Responder Odds Ratio.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026

Same journal

Epistemological Issues in Clinical Reasoning: A Scoping Review.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026

Same journal

An Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026

See all related articles

Identifying adverse events (AEs) in patients requires effective screening. While sensitive screens lack specificity, combinations using administrative data are cost-effective for quality improvement initiatives.

Area of Science:

Medical Quality Improvement
Patient Safety Research
Healthcare Informatics

Background:

Adverse events (AEs) are frequent, expensive, and often preventable in medical patients.
Effective routine screening methods are crucial for developing quality improvement programs to reduce AEs.
Understanding the impact, types, causes, and identification techniques for AEs is essential.

Purpose of the Study:

To review techniques for identifying AEs.
To evaluate generic screening criteria, including their sensitivity and specificity.
To assess the effectiveness of AE screening programs in reducing AE rates.

Main Methods:

Review of various techniques for identifying AEs.
Detailed evaluation of generic screening criteria.

Related Experiment Videos

Analysis of a study on the sensitivity and specificity of individual and combined screening criteria.

Assessment of administrative data-based screening combinations.

Main Results:

Highly sensitive screening criteria were generally less specific.
No small subset of criteria identified a large percentage of AEs.
Administrative data combinations were inexpensive but not highly sensitive, though potentially effective in practice.
Improving computer systems are expected to enhance screening sensitivity.

Conclusions:

AE screening tools have limitations but are vital for quality improvement.
Screening for and identifying AEs can contribute to reducing AE rates.
Further development in healthcare informatics will likely improve AE detection capabilities.