Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug–drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units:A multicentre retrospective observational study

Aims: Knowledge about adverse drug events caused by drug–drug interactions (DDI-ADEs) is limited. We aimed to provide detailed insights about DDI-ADEs related to three frequent, high-risk potential DDIs (pDDIs) in the critical care setting: pDDIs with international normalized ratio increase (INR+) potential, pDDIs with acute kidney injury (AKI) potential, and pDDIs with QTc prolongation potential. Methods: We extracted routinely collected retrospective data from electronic health records of intensive care units (ICUs) patients (≥18 years), admitted to ten hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and September 2019. We used computerized triggers (e-triggers) to preselect patients with potential DDI-ADEs. Between September 2020 and October 2021, clinical experts conducted a retrospective manual patient chart review on a subset of preselected patients, and assessed causality, severity, preventability, and contribution to ICU length of stay of DDI-ADEs using internationally prevailing standards. Results: In total 85 422 patients with ≥1 pDDI were included. Of these patients, 32 820 (38.4%) have been exposed to one of the three pDDIs. In the exposed group, 1141 (3.5%) patients were preselected using e-triggers. Of 237 patients (21%) assessed, 155 (65.4%) experienced an actual DDI-ADE; 52.9% had severity level of serious or higher, 75.5% were preventable, and 19.3% contributed to a longer ICU length of stay. The positive predictive value was the highest for DDI-INR+ e-trigger (0.76), followed by DDI-AKI e-trigger (0.57). Conclusion: The highly preventable nature and severity of DDI-ADEs, calls for action to optimize ICU patient safety. Use of e-triggers proved to be a promising preselection strategy.</p

Eye spy a lie:An eye-tracking study into gaze behaviour and receiving lies

Deception detection, a pivotal area in psychology and law enforcement, often yields accuracy rates that scarcely surpass random chance. This study employs eye-tracking technology to scrutinise behavioural cues that may serve as reliable indicators of deceptive communication. Using a 2x2 factorial experimental design, participants were designated as either interviewers or observers during interactions conducted via video and face-to-face modalities. The study reveals that heightened attention towards the mouth area of a communicator is significantly associated with improved deception detection accuracy. However, other gazing behaviours and facial cues did not manifest as dependable predictors. Furthermore, pre-existing beliefs about deceptive behaviour had a notable influence on detection accuracy, albeit only in the context of indirect veracity judgements. Surprisingly, neither the role assumed in the interaction (interviewer or observer) nor the medium of communication exhibited a significant impact on detection outcomes. These findings advance our scientific understanding of the behavioural cues in deception detection and hold substantial implications for professionals in law enforcement, human resources, and psychology