Bastiaan Sallevelt

48 CHAPTER 2.1 PPV. For instance, 11.8% (n = 76) of all ADEs with a causal relationship were related to the trigger ‘heart failure’, with the majority of these ADEs being adjudicated as underuse of beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, and diuretics [24]. For this reason, the PPVs of these two tools are difficult to compare. ADR recognition by usual care In addition to aiming for a high PPV, an ADR trigger tool needs to be of clinical value to usual care and increase the detection of unrecognised ADRs. Previous studies reported that drug related problems are missed or misdiagnosed in approximately 40–60% of the cases by physicians at the ED; however, we found a much higher recognition by usual care of ADRs identified with the use of the ADR trigger tool [6–8]. There are several explanations for this discrepancy. First, we investigated a subset of most frequent and serious ADRs in older people targeted by the ADR trigger tool, which cannot be compared with the broader definition of ‘drug-related problems’ in previous studies. In addition, our study was performed in an academic, teaching hospital and all patients were under geriatric care. Compared to other specialists, geriatric residents are well trained in detecting drug-related problems in their patients under the direct supervision of experienced geriatricians [33]. The high recognition of ADRs found in our study was comparable with the results of Klopotowska et al., who found that 80% of ADRs of at least possible causality in older hospitalised patients admitted to an internal medicine ward were recognised by usual care during the hospital stay [34]. Similar to our results, the majority of unrecognised ADRs were those with a possible causality score [34]. Strengths and limitations If implemented in daily practice, the PPV as a measure for performance is an important outcome to assess the relevance of triggers. The reported ADR recognition by usual care is highly relevant in deciding whether implementation of such a tool would add clinical value to usual patient care. To ensure that ADR recognition by usual care was not biased, we selected patients who were admitted before publication of the tool in the national guideline. Two independent clinicians thoroughly and manually screened admission letters for trigger-drug combinations, followed by causality assessment by a geriatrician and a clinical pharmacist revealing substantial inter-rater agreement (κ=0.76). There are, however, several limitations to this research. First, EHRs were only screened for trigger-drug combinations listed in the ADR trigger tool. Therefore, the negative predictive value, sensitivity or specificity of the tool could not be calculated. Second, retrospective studies based on chart review rely on documented