Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 6, 2025

Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Evaluation of two European risk models for predicting medication harm in an Australian patient cohort
Nazanin Falconer1,2,3, Michael Barras4,5, Ahmad Abdel-Hafiz5
1School of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, The University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, BrisbaneWoolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia. n.ghahremanfalconer@uq.edu.au.
Purpose:
To externally evaluate the performance of two European risk prediction models, for identifying patients at high-risk of medication harm, in an Australian hospital setting.
Methods:
This was a secondary analysis of a pre-existing cohort study described in a recently published study by Falconer et al. (Br J Clin Pharmacol 87(3):1512-1524, 2021) describing the development of a predictive risk model for inpatient medication harm. We retrospectively extracted relevant variables using the electronic health records of general medical and geriatric patients admitted to a quaternary hospital, in Brisbane, over 6 months from July to December 2017. This dataset was used to externally evaluate the two European models, The Brighton Adverse Drug Reaction Risk (BADRI) model by Tangiisuran et al. and a risk model developed by Trivalle et al. The variables were entered into both models and the patients' risk of medication harm was calculated, and compared with actual patient outcomes. Predictive performance was evaluated by measuring area under the receiver operative characteristic (AuROC) curves.
Results:
The Australian patient cohort included 1982 patients (median age 74 years), of which 136 (7%) patients experienced ≥ 1 medication harm event(s). External evaluation of the two European models identified that both the BADRI and the Trivalle models had reduced predictive performance in an Australian patient cohort, compared with their original studies (AuROC of 0.63 [95% CI: 0.58-0.68] and 0.60 [95% CI: 0.55-0.65], respectively).
Conclusion:
Neither model demonstrated sufficient discrimination to warrant further evaluation in our local setting. This is likely a result of variations between the development and the validation cohorts, and the change in healthcare systems over time, and highlights the need for an up-to-date and context-specific risk prediction model.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Pharmacokinetic Models: Overview
There are three primary types of models: empirical, compartment, and physiological. Empirical models, with minimal...
Drug Dosing: Geriatric Patients
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: Affecting Factors

