a Institute for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Colorado , Denver , Colorado , USA.
b Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , Colorado , USA.
Subst Abus. 2019;40(1):71-79. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2018.1546263. Epub 2019 Mar 15.
: Increasing epidemiologic and intervention research is being conducted on opioid overdose, a serious and potentially fatal outcome. However, there is little consensus on how to verify opioid overdose outcomes for research purposes. To ensure reproducibility, minimize misclassification, and permit data harmonization across studies, standardized and consistent overdose definitions are needed. The aims were to develop a case criteria classification scheme based on information commonly available in medical records and to compare it with reviewing physician clinical impression and simple encounter documentation. : In 2 large health systems, we developed a case criteria classification scheme for opioid overdose based on prior literature, expert opinion, and pilot testing with sample medical records. We then identified emergency department and hospital encounters ( = 259) with at least 1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code representing a broad range of opioid and non-opioid related poisonings. Physicians conducted structured medical record reviews to identify the proposed case criteria and generate a clinical impression, and trained abstractors verified documentation. We then compared the case criteria classification scheme with clinical impression and encounter documentation. : We developed a quantitative opioid overdose case criteria classification scheme that included 3 sets of major criteria and 9 minor criteria (supporting documentation). For the encounters identified using poisoning codes, the proportion verified as opioid overdoses using the case criteria classification scheme, clinical impression, and encounter documentation ranged from 50.4% to 52.7% at one site and 55.5% to 67.2% at the second site. Discrepancies across approaches and sites related to differences in available records and documentation of clinical signs of overdose. : We propose a novel case criteria classification scheme for opioid overdose that could be used to rigorously and consistently define overdose across multiple research settings. However, prior to widespread use, further refinement and validation are needed.
:越来越多的关于阿片类药物过量的流行病学和干预研究正在进行,这是一种严重且潜在致命的后果。然而,对于如何为研究目的验证阿片类药物过量的结果,目前还没有达成共识。为了确保可重复性、最小化分类错误,并允许研究之间的数据协调,需要标准化和一致的过量定义。目的是基于病历中常见的信息制定基于病例的标准分类方案,并将其与审查医生临床印象和简单的就诊记录进行比较。
:在两个大型医疗系统中,我们根据先前的文献、专家意见以及对样本病历的试点测试,制定了一个基于病例的阿片类药物过量标准分类方案。然后,我们确定了至少有一个代表广泛的阿片类和非阿片类中毒的国际疾病分类,第九版,临床修正(ICD-9-CM)代码的急诊室和医院就诊( = 259)。医生进行了结构化的病历审查,以确定拟议的病例标准并生成临床印象,经过培训的记录员验证了记录。然后,我们将病例标准分类方案与临床印象和就诊记录进行了比较。
:我们制定了一个定量的阿片类药物过量病例标准分类方案,其中包括 3 组主要标准和 9 组次要标准(支持文件)。对于使用中毒代码确定的就诊,使用病例标准分类方案、临床印象和就诊记录验证为阿片类药物过量的比例在一个地点为 50.4%至 52.7%,在第二个地点为 55.5%至 67.2%。不同方法和地点之间的差异与可用记录和过量临床体征记录的差异有关。
:我们提出了一种新的阿片类药物过量病例标准分类方案,可用于在多个研究环境中严格和一致地定义过量。然而,在广泛使用之前,还需要进一步改进和验证。