You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 99, Issue Suppl 2
  • PO-0926 Are Group Assessments Superior To Individual Avoidability Assessments? A Test Of The Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Avoidability Assessment Tool

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Pharmacology
PO-0926 Are Group Assessments Superior To Individual Avoidability Assessments? A Test Of The Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Avoidability Assessment Tool
Free
  1. LE Bracken1,
  2. JC Duncan1,
  3. M Peak1,
  4. J Arnott2,
  5. JJ Kirkham3,
  6. AJ Nunn4,
  7. M Pirmohamed5,
  8. MA Turner4
  1. 1Research and Development, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
  3. 3Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  4. 4Department of Women’s and Children’s Health Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  5. 5Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Background There is currently no standardised method for determining avoidability of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and many of the established tools are not suitable for use in paediatrics. We have developed a new tool; the Liverpool ADR avoidability assessment tool (LAAT). Initial testing showed mixed inter-rater reliability.

Aim To test the hypothesis that group assessments are superior to individual avoidability assessments.

Methods Participants were assigned either to a consensus group or to individually assess avoidability for a purposive sample of 20 ADR cases. Individual participants (nurses, pharmacists and doctors) independently assessed the cases. Groups took part in multidisciplinary meetings to assess the cases and reach consensus. The results were compared to the ‘gold standard’ (the avoidability outcome set by a panel of senior investigators). An ethnographic approach was taken; the consensus meetings were overseen by a facilitator and non-participant observations of the meetings were recorded. Post consensus meeting semi-structured interviews were conducted with the group members. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were carried out. We examined the extent to which individuals and groups agreed with the ‘gold standard’ using percentage exact agreement (%EA) (Figure 1).

Results Agreement ranged from 35–70%. The mean agreement for individuals was 54% and 47% for the consensus groups.

Conclusion In assessing avoidability of ADRs individual assessments had better agreement with the ‘gold standard’ evaluation than group assessments. Qualitative analysis of meeting observations and participant interviews may help identify reasons for this and inform the optimisation of the LAAT for assessment of ADR avoidability.

Abstract PO-0926 Figure 1
Abstract PO-0926 Figure 1

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307384.1547

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.