US - National Action Plan For Adverse Drug Event Prevention

Natio nal Ac tio n Plan for
Advers e Drug Event

Prevention
Suggested citation:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
(2014). National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention. Washington, DC: Author.
Foreword
I am pleased to share the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention (ADE Action Plan). As
we know, millions of Americans take medications every day to prevent and treat a variety of health
conditions, and advances in therapeutics have improved and saved millions of lives. However,
medications can also cause harmsknown as adverse drug events (ADEs)that are often preventable.
ADE prevention is an important patient safety priority, with ADEs accounting for an estimated one-third
of hospital adverse events and approximately 280,000 hospital admissions annually. The Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) encourages the prevention of adverse drug events through
coordination and partnerships with public and private sector stakeholders.
The ADE Action Plan identifies efforts to date to measure and prevent ADEs, and promote medication
safety. In addition, this plan outlines future opportunities to advance patient safety with regard to the
prevention of adverse drug events among three primary drug classes: anticoagulants, diabetes agents,
and opioids. The ADE Action Plan is intended to encourage nationwide efforts to coordinate Federal
resources and activities that will reduce preventable adverse drug events and increase awareness of the
importance of medication safety.
Achieving high-quality health care for all Americans is a top priority for the U.S. Government. By
improving patient safety, we can lower health care costs for the Nation and improve the care that we
provide to patients, their families, and the community at large. Through ongoing collaboration, we can
realize our vision of a healthy and productive society. Patients across the nation depend on our efforts
to ensure that the health care they receive is effective and efficient, and guarantees the highest quality
of care.
The ADE Action Plan helps achieve the Nations goal to strengthen health systems by improving the
quality of health care and ensuring patient safety. Through ongoing efforts and the investment of
resources to prevent unnecessary medication errors and resulting complications, America can become a
stronger and healthier Nation. The National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention is a major
step toward realizing this vision.
Sincerely,
Howard Koh, M.D., M.P.H.

Assistant Secretary for Health
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | iii

Contents
Foreword .......................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. viii
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Adverse Drug Events: Magnitude of the Problem ................................................................................. 5
Federal Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups for ADEs .................................................. 10
References ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Section 1. National ADE Action Plan Scope and Development............................................................ 16
Scope of the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention ........................................................................ 16
Framework for the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention .............................................................. 17
Development Process for the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention ............................................. 18
References ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Section 2. Surveillance Resources ..................................................................................................... 23
Considerations for Choosing Surveillance Data Sources and Metrics .................................................. 23
Federal Systems That Conduct ADE Surveillance ................................................................................. 26
Future Considerations for Optimizing Federal ADE Surveillance Efforts ............................................. 30
References ............................................................................................................................................ 31
Section 3. Prevention Approaches .................................................................................................... 33
Key Determinants of Preventable ADEs ............................................................................................... 33
Affordable Care ActHealth Care Delivery Models ............................................................................ 35
References ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Section 4. Incentives and Oversight Opportunities ............................................................................ 37
Regulatory Oversight ............................................................................................................................ 37
Value-Based Purchasing Financial Incentives ....................................................................................... 39
Transparency and Associated Incentives ............................................................................................. 45
Related Initiatives Addressing ADEs ..................................................................................................... 45
Section 5. Anticoagulants ................................................................................................................. 50
Magnitude of the Problem ................................................................................................................... 50
Surveillance .......................................................................................................................................... 55
Evidence-Based Prevention Tools ........................................................................................................ 58
Incentives and Oversight ...................................................................................................................... 74
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | iv

Contents
Health Information Technology (Health IT).......................................................................................... 80

Research (Unanswered Questions) ...................................................................................................... 84
References ............................................................................................................................................ 88
Section 6. Diabetes Agents ............................................................................................................... 99
Magnitude of the Problem ................................................................................................................... 99
Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................ 102
Evidence-Based Prevention Tools ...................................................................................................... 105
Incentives and Oversight .................................................................................................................... 116
Health Information Technology (Health IT)........................................................................................ 119
Research (Unanswered Questions) .................................................................................................... 122
References .......................................................................................................................................... 124
Section 7. Opioids .......................................................................................................................... 131
Magnitude of the Problem ................................................................................................................. 131
Surveillance ........................................................................................................................................ 134
Evidence-Based Prevention Tools ...................................................................................................... 138
Incentives and Oversight .................................................................................................................... 148
Health Information Technology (Health IT)........................................................................................ 150
Research (Unanswered Questions) .................................................................................................... 152
References .......................................................................................................................................... 154
Conclusions and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ 157
Appendix A. Key Partnerships in Development of the National ADE Action Plan .............................. 160
Appendix B. Overview of Federal Systems That Conduct ADE Surveillance ....................................... 162
Appendix C. Affordable Care Act Health Care Delivery Models Relevant to ADE Prevention ............. 168
Appendix D. Overview of CMS Programs/Initiatives With Potential To Advance ADE Prevention ..... 170
Figures
Figure 1. Terms Relevant to Drug-Related Harm ......................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Hospital Stays Complicated by Adverse Drug Events, Distribution by Age................................... 8
Figure 3. Rate of Ambulatory Visits for Adverse Drug Events, Distribution by Age..................................... 8
Figure 4. Organizational Structure of the Federal Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups
for Adverse Drug Events ............................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 5. Strengths and Limitations of Federal Systems That Conduct ADE Surveillance ......................... 29
Figure 6. Fishbone Diagram: Select Determinants of Preventable Adverse Drug Events......................... 34
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | v

Contents
Figure 7. Federal Interagency Workgroup Recommendations for Actions That Can Potentially
Advance Surveillance Strategies for Anticoagulant ADEs ........................................................................... 57
Figure 8. Federal Assets Related to Safe Management of Anticoagulation Therapy, as Identified by
the National Quality Strategy Priorities ...................................................................................................... 59
Figure 9. Opportunities for Advancing Anticoagulant ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified
by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings ................................................................. 62
Figure 10. Opportunities for Advancing Anticoagulant ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as
Identified by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings ............................................. 70
Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for Anticoagulant ADE Prevention ................................................ 77
Advance Research Strategies for Anticoagulant ADE Prevention............................................................... 87
Figure 13. Actions That Can Potentially Advance Surveillance Strategies for Diabetes Agent ADEs....... 105
Figure 14. Federal Assets Related to Management of Diabetes Agents, as Identified by the National
Quality Strategy Priorities ......................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 15. Opportunities for Advancing Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as
Identified by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings .............................................. 110
Figure 16. Opportunities for Advancing Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools as
Identified by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings ........................................... 114
Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention ............................................ 117
Advance Research Strategies for Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention .......................................................... 123
Advance Surveillance Strategies for Opioid ADEs ..................................................................................... 138
Figure 20. Federal Assets Related to Safe Management of Opioid Therapy, as Identified by the
National Quality Strategy Priorities .......................................................................................................... 140
Figure 21. Opportunities for Advancing Opioid ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified by
the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings .................................................................... 142
Figure 22. Opportunities for Advancing Opioid ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified by
the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings ................................................................. 143
Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for Opioid ADE Prevention .......................................................... 150
Advance Research Strategies for Opioid ADE Prevention ........................................................................ 153
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | vi

Contents
Tables
Table 1. Examples of How Health Information Technology Can Support Goals of the ADE Action
Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Table 2. 2014 EHR Incentive Program Core and Clinical Quality Measures Related to Medication
Safety .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3. Summary of Metrics Related to Anticoagulant ADEs Collected by Federal Surveillance
Systems ....................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 4. Department of Veterans AffairsNational Center for Patient Safety Actions From VA and
Non-VA Facilities To Control Vulnerability From Anticoagulation ............................................................ 65
Table 5. National Quality Forum (NQF)-Endorsed Health Care Quality Measures Specific to
Anticoagulation Safety ................................................................................................................................ 78
Table 6. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) Meaningful Use Requirements That Can Potentially
Advance Anticoagulant ADE Prevention, as Proposed by the Federal Interagency Workgroup for ADEs ........ 82
Table 7. Possible Areas for Health Care Quality Measure Concept Development Related to
Anticoagulant ADE Prevention and Current Barriers to Development....................................................... 84
Table 8. Summary of Metrics Related to Diabetes Agent ADEs (Hypoglycemia), Collected by Federal
Surveillance Systems ................................................................................................................................. 102
Table 9. National Quality Forum (NQF)Endorsed Health Care Quality Measures Specific to
Diabetes Medication Management and Hospital Admissions* ................................................................ 118
Table 10. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) Meaningful Use Requirements That Can
Potentially Advance Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention, as Proposed by the Federal Interagency
Workgroup for ADEs ................................................................................................................................. 119
Table 11. Summary of Opioid ADE Metrics Collected by Federal and Relevant State Surveillance
Systems ..................................................................................................................................................... 135
Table 12. Summary of Metrics Related to Opioid ADEs Collected by Federal and Relevant State
Surveillance Systems ................................................................................................................................. 136
Table 13. Systematic Actions From VA and DOD Facilities for Safe and Effective Opioid Use for Pain
Management............................................................................................................................................. 147
Table 14. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) MU Requirements That Can Potentially
Advance Opioid ADE Prevention, as Proposed by the Federal Interagency Workgroup for Opioid
ADEs .......................................................................................................................................................... 152
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | vii

List of Acronyms
Federal Agencies
ACL Administration for Community Living

AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
ASPE Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
BOP Bureau of Prisons
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
DEA Drug Enforcement Administration
DOD Department of Defense
FDA Food and Drug Administration
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration
IHS Indian Health Service
NIH National Institutes of Health
OASH Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health
ODPHP Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
OIG Office of the Inspector General
ONC Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
VA Department of Veterans Affairs
Acronyms
AACE American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

ACA Affordable Care Act
ACCORD Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes
ACCP American College of Chest Physicians
ACO Accountable Care Organization
ACP American College of Physicians
ADA American Diabetes Association
ADE adverse drug event
ADR adverse drug reaction
ADVANCE Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease
AF atrial fibrillation
AGS American Geriatrics Society
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | viii

List of Acronoyms
AMDA American Medical Directors Association

AO National Accreditation Organization
APhA American Pharmacists Association
aPTT activated partial thromboplastin time
BG blood glucose
BMI body mass index
CAH critical access hospital
CCTP Community-Based Care Transitions Program
CDS clinical decision support
CE continuing education
CfC Condition for Coverage
CHF congestive heart failure
CHIP Childrens Health Insurance Program
CLAS National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services
CME continuing medical education
CMMI Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation
CMO chief medical officer
CoP Condition of Participation
CPOE computerized physician/provider order entry
CPT Current Procedural Terminology
DAWN Drug Abuse Warning Network
DCCT Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
DM diabetes mellitus
DSME diabetes self-management education
DUE drug use evaluation
DUR drug utilization review
DVT deep vein thrombosis
E/M evaluation and management
E-codes external causes of injury codes
ED emergency department
EH eligible hospital
EHR electronic health record
EP eligible professional
e-prescribing electronic prescribing
FAERS Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System
FIW Federal Interagency Workgroup
HAI health care-associated infection
HAS-BLED Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or
Predisposition, Labile International Normalized Ratio, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol
Concomitantly
HbA1c hemoglobin A1c
HCUP Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project
HEN hospital engagement network
health IT health information technology
HITECH Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | ix

List of Acronoyms
HVBP Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

ICD International Classification of Diseases
ICPCA Integrating Care for Populations and Communities Aim
ICU intensive care unit
IHI Institute for Healthcare Improvement
IIT intensive insulin therapy
INR international normalized ratio
IQR inpatient quality reporting
ISMP Institute for Safe Medication Practices
iTTR individual time in therapeutic range
IV intravenous
LMWH low-molecular-weight heparin
LTC long-term care
LTCF long-term care facility
MAPCP Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice
MCBS Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey
MED morphine equivalent dose
mg/dL milligrams per deciliter
MI myocardial infarction
MMCO Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office
mmol millimoles
MPSMS Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System
MR modified release (tablets)
mTBI mild traumatic brain injury
MUET medication use evaluation template
NASCOLA North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association
NCD national coverage determination
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics
NDEP National Diabetes Education Program
NEDS Nationwide Emergency Department Sample
NEISS-CADES National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event
Surveillance
NGSP National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NHIS National Health Interview Survey
NHSN National Healthcare Safety Network
NICE-SUGAR Normoglycaemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm
Regulation
NIS Nationwide Inpatient Sample
NOAC new oral anticoagulant
NPSG National Patient Safety Goal
NPV negative predictive value
NQF National Quality Forum
NVSS National Vital Statistics System
PBSS Prescription Behavior Surveillance System
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | x

List of Acronoyms
PC-PTSD Primary Care-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen

PDMP Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
PE pulmonary embolism
PHQ-2 Patient Health Questionnaire
POC point-of-care
PPV positive predictive value
PQI Prevention Quality Indicator
PQRS Physician Quality Reporting System
Project RED Project Re-Engineered Discharge
PSI Patient Safety Indicator
PSM patient self-monitoring
PSPC Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Collaborative
PST patient self-testing
PT prothrombin time
QIO Quality Improvement Organization
REMS Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy
RPMS-EHR Resource and Patient Management System-Electronic Health Record
S&C survey and certification
SA State Survey Agency
SES socioeconomic status
SPP Sole Provider Program
T1DM type 1 diabetes mellitus
T2DM type 2 diabetes mellitus
TJC The Joint Commission
TMS Talent Management System
TTR time in therapeutic range
UFH unfractionated heparin
VA ADERS Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Adverse Drug Event Reporting System
VADT Veterans Affairs (VA) Diabetes Trial
VBP Value-Based Purchasing
VKAs vitamin K antagonists
VTE venous thromboembolism
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | xi

Executive Summary
The National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention (ADE Action Plan) was established to
address two key objectives: (1) identify common, preventable, and measurable adverse drug events
(ADEs) that may result in significant patient harm; and (2) align the efforts of Federal health agencies to
reduce patient harms from these specific ADEs nationally.
On the basis of national ADE data from inpatient and outpatient settings, three types of ADEs were
considered to be common, clinically significant, preventable, and measureable, and were therefore
selected as the high-priority targets of the ADE Action Plan.
The three initial targets of the ADE Action Plan are

Anticoagulants (primary ADE of concern: bleeding)
Diabetes agents (primary ADE of concern: hypoglycemia)
Opioids (primary ADE of concern: accidental overdoses/oversedation /respiratory depression)
The ADE Action Plan suggests a four-pronged approach to reduce patient harms from these three ADEs:
Surveillance, Prevention, Incentives and Oversight, and Research.
1) SurveillanceCoordinate existing Federal surveillance resources and data to assess the health
burden and rates of ADEs.
Federal public health agencies will strive to coordinate ADE surveillance efforts to assess
progress in the prevention of anticoagulant, diabetes agent, and opioid ADEs at a population-
based level. Federal Agencies that provide direct patient carei will identify opportunities for
assessing progress in preventing anticoagulant, diabetes agent, and opioid ADEs within their
health care delivery networks. Using enhanced and more consistent definitions of ADEs,
i
These agencies include but are not limited to the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Defense, Health Resources
and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, and Veterans Health Administration.
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 1

Executive Summary
specifically those associated with high-priority ADE targets (i.e., anticoagulants, diabetes agents,
opioids), can allow for more effective measuring and tracking of ADEs.
2) PreventionShare existing evidence-based prevention tools across Federal Agencies and with
non-Federal health care providers and patients.
Federal public health agencies that support the development and dissemination of evidence-
based prevention tools will promote the dissemination of these tools to prevent anticoagulant,
diabetes agent, and opioid ADEs, and will collaborate with Federal Agencies that provide direct
patient care to disseminate the evidence-based prevention tools these agencies use, particularly
for high-risk patient populations (e.g., older adults and people with disabilities) and for high-risk
situations and settings in which ADE prevention strategies may be lacking (e.g., care transitions,
institutional and noninstitutional long-term care).
3) Incentives and OversightExplore opportunities, including financial incentives and oversight

authorities, to promote ADE prevention.
Federal public health agencies and agencies that provide direct patient care share a
commitment to improving patient safety and will explore opportunities to incorporate the
prevention of anticoagulant, diabetes agent, and opioid ADEs within existing safety and quality
programs, measures, and payment models.
4) ResearchIdentify current knowledge gaps and future research needs (unanswered questions)
for ADE prevention.
Federal health agencies will collaborate to identify key research needs and facilitate the basic,
translational, and health services research required to identify the most effective strategies for
the prevention of anticoagulant, diabetes agent, and opioid ADEs, particularly among high-risk
patients.
Within each of the sections dedicated to the three high-priority targets for ADE prevention efforts,
figures highlight the most pertinent actions to potentially advance the areas of surveillance, evidence-
based prevention tools, incentives and oversight, and research, as well as the role of health information
technology.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is releasing the final National Action Plan for
Adverse Drug Event Prevention, following issuance of a draft ADE Action Plan and review of public

Executive Summary
comments. The success of the ADE Action Plan will depend on ongoing coordination and collaboration
across the Federal Government and among Government Agencies, national experts, and key public and
private stakeholders. The ADE Action Plan should serve as a catalyst for leaders at the Federal, State,
and local levels to implement evidence-based guidelines and engage in strategies that will help advance
the goals of the ADE Action Plan. As progress is made toward reducing ADEs from the initial targets of
the ADE Action Plan (i.e., anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids), prevention efforts will need to
be retooled to include additional and newly emerging medication safety targets.

Introduction
This National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention (ADE Action Plan) seeks to engage all
stakeholders in a coordinated, aligned, multisector, and health-literate effort to reduce the ADEs that
are most common, clinically significant, preventable, and measurable. The ADE Action Plan identifies
the Federal Governments highest priority strategies and opportunities for advancement, which will
have the greatest impact on reducing ADEs. Implementation of these strategies is expected to result in
safer and higher quality health care services, reduced health care costs, informed and engaged
consumers, and ultimately, improved health outcomes.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), in conjunction with the Federal
Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups for ADEs, led the development of the ADE Action Plan.
Specifically, representatives of as many as 13 Federal Agencies and non-Federal subject matter expert
consultants contributed to the ADE Action Plan, to draw attention to ADEs as a major patient safety and
public health issue.
The ADE Action Plan provides Federal Agencies and external stakeholders with a framework to identify
strategies and select specific actions to take. The intended end users of the Action Plan are
policymakers, health care professionals, public and private sector organizations, and communities that
can organize and take action toward preventing high-priority ADEs.
The ADE Action Plan is organized into seven sections. The first four sections outline the scope and
development of the ADE Action Plan, identify Federal surveillance resources to measure and monitor
the burden of ADEs, describe overall prevention approaches by identifying key determinants of ADEs,
and review incentives and oversight opportunities to prevent ADEs. The next three sections of the ADE
Action Plan address in detail the high-priority ADE targets (anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids)
that are the focus of the ADE Action Plan, highlighting the most pertinent actions to potentially advance
each of the areas of surveillance, evidence-based prevention tools, incentives and oversight, and
research (unanswered questions), as well as the role of health information technology (health IT) in
advancing these efforts. Some of these sections provide recommendations or information that informs
other areas. The final section presents conclusions and outlines next steps.

Introduction
Adverse Drug Events: Magnitude of the Problem
ADE Prevention Is a Patient Safety Priority

An adverse drug event has been defined by the Institute of Medicine as an injury resulting from
medical intervention related to a drug [1]. This broad term encompasses harms that occur during
medical care that are directly caused by the drug including but are not limited to medication errors,
adverse drug reactions, allergic reactions, and overdoses [1] [Figure 1]. A medication error is defined as
inappropriate use of a drug that may or may not result in harm; such errors may occur during
prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, administering, adherence, or monitoring of a
drug [2,3]. In contrast, an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is harms directly caused by a drug at normal
doses [3].
Figure 1. Terms Relevant to Drug-Related Harm [2]
Adverse Drug Events

(all blue areas)
Medication
Errors
Adverse Drug Reactions
(dark blue area only)
A large majority of ADEs are preventable. In 2006, 82 percent of the United States population reported
using at least one prescription medication, over-the-counter medication, or dietary supplement, and 29
percent reported using five or more prescription medications [4]. Among older adults (65 years of age
or older), 5759 percent reported taking five to nine medications and 1719 percent reported taking 10
or more over the course of that year [4]. Given the U.S. populations large and ever-increasing
magnitude of medication exposure, the potential for harms from ADEs constitutes a critical patient
safety and public health challenge.
ADEs can occur in any health care setting, including inpatient (e.g., acute care hospitals), outpatient, and
institutional and noninstitutional long-term care (LTC) settings (e.g., nursing homes, group homes). The
likelihood of ADEs occurring may also increase during transitions of care (e.g., discharge from a hospital
to a nursing home or patients move from one health care provider or setting to another), when

Introduction
information may not be adequately transferred between health care providers [5] or patients may not
completely understand how to manage their medications [6, 7, 8].
In inpatient settings, research indicates that ADEs are among the largest contributors to hospital-related
complications [9, 10]. It has been estimated that ADEs comprise one-third of hospital adverse events
[9], affect approximately 2 million hospital stays annually [9, 11], and prolong hospital length of stay by
approximately 1.7 to 4.6 days [11, 12, 13]. Data regarding how ADEs contribute to postdischarge
complications or during other types of care transitions are lacking. One single-center study based in a
tertiary care academic medical center identified ADEs as the most common cause of postdischarge
complications occurring within 3 weeks of hospital discharge (accounting for two-thirds of
postdischarge complications) [14]; in this study, 24 percent of postdischarge ADEs were judged to be
preventable, and in another, similar study, 27 percent of postdischarge ADEs were judged to be
preventable and 33 percent ameliorable [15]. In outpatient settings, nationally representative
surveillance data indicate that ADEs account for more than 3.5 million physician office visits [16], an
estimated 1 million emergency department (ED) visits [17], and approximately 125,000 hospital
admissions each year [17]. An analysis of 2011 data indicated that ADEs were three times more likely to
be present on admission than during the hospital stay [18].
The economic impact of ADEs has been inadequately studied. Older data indicate that ADEs impose a
large financial burden on health care expenditures [12, 13]; one study estimated ADEs incurred $5.6
million (1993 USD) in excess hospital costs [12]. National estimates suggest that ADEs contribute an
additional $3.5 billion (2006 USD) to U.S. health care costs [19]. Older adults experience the highest
population rates of ADEs resulting in ED visits and are seven times more likely than younger persons to
have an ADE that requires emergent hospital admission [16, 20]. Analysis of 2011 data indicated that
Medicare beneficiaries are at the highest risk of acquiring an ADE during a hospital stay with Medicare
reimbursing 75 percent of inpatient ADEs attributable to the most common medications [20]. These ED
visits and hospital admissions from ADEs, a significant number of which are considered preventable,
contribute to an enormously overburdened Medicare system [9].
Focus on High-Impact Targets and Populations

The National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention focuses on common, clinically significant,
preventable, and measurable ADEs. A key group of ADEs are particularly dangerous and largely
preventable, and for these reasons, they are high-priority targets for national and local ADE prevention
efforts.

Introduction
Medication Classes Most Commonly Implicated in ADEs

In a nationally representative sample of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries, the targets of the ADE
Action Plan were identified as three of the most commonly implicated drug classes in ADEs:
anticoagulants, opioids, and insulin [9]. Conservative estimates indicate that hospitalized patients
experience 380,000 to 450,000 ADEs each year, with a large majority of these attributable to
anticoagulants and opioids [17]. A large percentage of these ADEs were judged to be preventable.
In outpatient settings, national public health surveillance data indicate that a small group of key
medication classesthose that are characterized by a narrow therapeutic index or require routine
laboratory monitoringcause the most outpatient medication-related harms [19, 21]. In a recent,
nationally representative sample of hospital admissions for ADEs among older adults, an estimated two-
thirds of admissions involved just four medication classes, three of which are preventable targets of the
ADE Action Plan: anticoagulants (e.g., warfarin), insulin, and oral diabetes agents (e.g., sulfonylurea)
[20]. A significant proportion of ADEs in this sample resulted from unintentional overdoses or
supratherapeutic effects (e.g., bleeding due to excessive anticoagulation or hypoglycemia from
excessive insulin administration) [20].
Most Vulnerable Populations

It is recognized that several patient populations may be especially vulnerable to ADEs, including the very
young (pediatric patients), older adults, individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) or low health
literacy, those with limited access to health care services, and certain minority races or ethnic groups.
To date, data commonly implicate age as a principle underlying risk factor for ADEs and suggest that
older adults are particularly vulnerable to ADEs, likely owing to altered pharmacokinetics, polypharmacy,
or cognitive decline [22, 23, 24]. For example, older adults comprise approximately 35 percent of all
inpatient stays but contribute to approximately 53 percent of inpatient stays complicated by ADEs
[Figure 2] [11]. Analyses of cost data indicate that Medicare-covered patients experience significantly
higher rates of ADEs than both privately insured and Medicaid-covered patients. In the outpatient
setting, national surveillance data indicate that older adults are two to three times more likely to have
an ADE requiring a physician office or ED visit and seven times more likely to have an ADE requiring
hospital admission [Figure 3] [19, 20]. The aging of the population and the vulnerability of older adults
to ADEs will have significant implications for Medicare. In 2050, the number of Americans aged 65 and
older is projected to be 88.5 million, more than double its population in 2010 of 40.2 million [25].
Spending in the United States for prescription drugs in 2010 was $259.1 billion and is expected to double

Introduction
over the next decade [26]. Total expenditures on the Medicare Part D program alone in 2012 were
$66.9 billion and are projected to reach $165.1 billion by 2022 [27].
Figure 2. Hospital Stays Complicated by Adverse Drug Events, Distribution by Age [11]*
*2008 data analyzed from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, AHRQ
Figure 3. Rate of Ambulatory Visits for Adverse Drug Events, Distribution by Age [28]*
5
Per 10,000 persons per year
4 3.8
3
2.2
2
1.3
1
0
25 - 44 yrs old 45 - 64 yrs old 65+ yrs old
*20052007 data analyzed from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital and Ambulatory
Medical Care Survey, CDC

Introduction
Underserved and Rural Communities

Any steps to reduce the incidence of ADEs should take into consideration the available resources of the
health care provider, institution, and surrounding community. In underserved and rural communities,
limited access to health care services, shortages of qualified health care personnel, slower adoption of
electronic health records (EHRs), higher rates of older adults with chronic conditions, low health literacy,
and reduced revenue may affect the successful implementation of approaches outlined in this
document [29, 30].
Limited staff resources and slower adoption of EHRs affect current surveillance efforts, which rely on
clinical chart abstractions. In a rural or underserved community, the health care provider may be forced
to choose between dedicating time to patient care and investing time in reporting rates of ADEs. Even
as the Nation moves toward a more seamless system for reporting these errors through the use of EHRs,
underserved communities will be at a disadvantage, as EHR adoption rates continue to be higher within
facilities with more financial resources, and rural communities continue to lag behind their urban
counterparts [31, 32].
Implementing ADE prevention efforts requires extensive staff training, investment of financial resources,
and coordination of providersall of which may be challenging in communities where staffing is limited,
providers are not located within the same geographic community, and financial resources are scarce
[33]. In rural communities especially, coordination of medications across health care providers may be
limited, as only generalists may be available in the community and prescribing specialists may be many
miles away [34]. Rural and underserved communities may be less capable of taking advantage of
advances in technology, such as the use of clinical decision support (CDS) in EHRs, and are less likely to
have access to e-prescribing systems, which serve as a valuable tool to track inappropriate dosages,
drug-drug interactions, and drug-allergy interactions.
The complexity of the care that pharmacists provide patients necessitates that patients should have
access to the health care provider responsible for their care during all aspects of medication therapy.
Although such local access is not always possible in low-volume, rural settings, leveraging technology to
access remotely delivered care can result in both direct intervention and enhanced patient education.
Provider involvement is crucial to supporting consumer engagement in shared decisionmaking regarding
medication management. This may be more challenging within underserved and rural communities, as
evidence suggests that individuals in rural communities and those with lower SES have lower health
literacy [29].

Introduction
Rural health care providers like critical access hospitals (CAHs) are not subject to some of the same
reporting requirements and financial incentive programs as other providers. For example, although the
majority of CAHs report quality measure information to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) Hospital Compare Web site, these hospitals are exempt from this requirement, which means that
changes in CMS programs and policies may not have the same impact on some rural populations.
Finally, within underserved communities, there is a significant delay in the translation of research into
practice [35]. Thus, even proven interventions or new findings related to reducing ADEs may take many
years to benefit rural and underserved communities.
Federal Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups for ADEs
The Call for Action

In 2010, the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) into
law, strengthening and modernizing health care [36]. One of the goals of the Affordable Care Act is to
reduce the mounting health care costs that have put a strain on patients, employers, and our Federal
budget. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for implementing
many of the health reform changes, including an objective aimed at improving health care quality and
ensuring patient safety. In order to achieve this objective, HHS has developed several key strategies,
two of which relate directly to ADEs:
Reduce health careassociated infections, ADEs, and other complications of health care delivery
through quality and safety promotion efforts.
Establish the Partnership for Patients, a publicprivate partnership to help improve the quality,
safety, and affordability of health care for all Americans.
In December 2011, the U.S. Senate sent a bipartisan letter to the Secretary of HHS requesting that the
Department convene a Federal interagency task force to identify patients at risk for ADEs and
opportunities to improve the care provided to patients at highest risk for ADEs. The letter specifically
requested that the task force include in their considerations care transitions, the role of health IT,
identification of existing and needed measures, and the impact of new Medicare reimbursement
models. The ADE Action Plan specifically addresses each of these considerations.

Introduction
In September 2012, in response to the heightened awareness of the contributions of ADEs to health
care-related harms and costs, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) marshaled the
wide-ranging and diverse resources of Federal partners to form an extensive interagency partnership,
the Federal Interagency Steering Committee [Appendix A], whose goal would be to develop a National
Action Plan for ADE Prevention, to be modeled after the National Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-
Associated Infections [37].
Structuring the ADE Action Plan

Given the substantial breadth and depth of ADEs and the complexity in attempting to address the full
scope of medication-related harms, the members of the Federal Interagency Steering Committee
determined that the ADE Action Plan would focus on those ADEs that (1) account for the greatest
number of measurable harms, (2) can be effectively measured, and (3) are considered largely
preventable. Among the drug classes considered for the ADE Action Plan targets were: anti-infectives,
antineoplastics, anticoagulants, insulin/oral diabetes agents, opioids, and benzodiazepines. Owing to
the morbidity and mortality associated with their harms and their well-established amenability for
prevention, the Steering Committee selected anticoagulants, diabetes agents (insulin and oral agents),
and opioids as the three high-priority drug classes that would be initial targets for the ADE Action Plan.
Under the leadership of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), the Federal
Interagency Steering Committee established three separate Federal Interagency Workgroups (FIWs),
each with a focus on one of the three high-priority drug classes. The FIWs initiated discussions to
identify coordinated approaches to ADEs from these high-priority drug classes, specifically in the areas
of surveillance, evidence-based prevention tools, incentives and oversight, and research (unanswered
questions) [Figure 4]. In addition, each FIW considered health information technology (health IT) as a
potential resource that could enhance the work in each of these areas.

Introduction
Figure 4. Organizational Structure of the Federal Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups for
Adverse Drug Events
Abbreviations: Health IT = health information technology
The release of the ADE Action Plan should be viewed as only the beginning of a coordinated process that
will result in stakeholders who are more engaged, aware, and knowledgeable of issues regarding the
safe use of prescribed medications to prevent ADEs. Although the ADE Action Plan primarily reflects the
efforts and resources of Federal Agencies, outlining ADE prevention goals and, more importantly,
achieving ADE reductions and improving patient safety is neither complete nor feasible without further
engagement of professional organizations. These include medical, nursing, pharmacy, and other allied
health professionals; academia; consumer advocates; patients; and other private sector stakeholders.
Consequently, the ODPHP, the Federal Interagency Steering Committee, and the FIWs for ADEs will
continue to identify opportunities to engage these entities and gather their feedback. The goal is to use
coordinated Federal partnerships, public and private sector collaborations, and aligned approaches to
improve the quality and safety of health care, reduce health care costs, and improve the health and
quality of life of millions of people in the United States. The Federal Interagency Steering Committee

Introduction
anticipates that future iterations of the ADE Action Plan will provide both updates on progress in
addressing the three high-priority ADE targets and expansion to other drug classes. Advances in
surveillance systems will support the Federal Governments ability to monitor the impact of Federal
coordination, as well as nationwide progress in reducing ADEs.
References
1. Kohn L T, Corrigan J M, Donaldson MS (Institute of Medicine). To err is human: building a safer

health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
2. VA Center for Medication Safety and VHA Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Healthcare
Group and the Medical Advisory Panel. Adverse drug events, adverse drug reactions and
medication errors: Frequently asked questions. 2006. Available from:
http://www.va.gov/MS/Professionals/medications/Adverse_Drug_Reaction_FAQ.pdf
3. Nebeker JR, Barach P, Samore MH. Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinicians guide to
terminology, documentation, and reporting. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:795-801.
4. Slone Epidemiology Center. Patterns of medication use in the United States: A report from the
Slone Survey. Boston, MA: 2006.
5. Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker FW. Deficits in
communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians:
implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA. 2007;297(8):831-41.
6. Schnipper JL, Kirwin JL, Cotugno MC, Wahlstrom SA, Brown BA, Tarvin E, et al. Role of
pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med.
2006;166(5):565-71.
7. Calkins DR, Davis RB, Reiley P, Phillips RS, Pineo KL, Delbanco TL, et al. Patient-physician
communication at hospital discharge and patients understanding of the postdischarge
treatment plan. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(9):1026-30.
8. Lindquist LA, Go L, Fleisher J, Jain N, Friesema E, Baker DW. Relationship of health literacy to
intentional and unintentional non-adherence of hospital discharge medications. J Gen Intern
Med. 2012;27(2):173-8.
9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG). Adverse
Events in Hospitals: National Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Washington, DC. 2010
November. Report No.: OEI-06-09-00090.
10. De vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and
nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care.
2008;17(3):216-23.

Introduction
11. Lucado, J. (Social & Scientific Systems, Inc.), Paez, K. (Social & Scientific Systems, Inc.), and
Elixhauser A. (AHRQ). Medication-Related Adverse Outcomes in U.S. Hospitals and Emergency
Departments, 2008. HCUP Statistical Brief #109. April 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, Rockville, MD. Available from: http://www.hcup-
us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb109.pdf.
12. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. The costs of adverse drug
events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA.
1997;277(4):307-11.
13. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized
patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1997;277(4):301-
6.
14. Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse
events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138(3):161-
7.
15. Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. Adverse drug events occurring following
hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(4):317-23.
16. Bourgeois FT, Shannon MW, Valim C, Mandl KD. Adverse drug events in the outpatient setting:
an 11-year national analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(9):901-10.
17. CDC, unpublished data. Updated numbers for: Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN,
Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL. National surveillance of emergency department visits
for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA. 2006;296(15):1858-66.
18. Weiss AJ, Elixhauser A, Bae J, Encinosa W. Origin of Adverse Drug Events in U.S. Hospitals, 2011.
HCUP Statistical Brief # 158. July 2013. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville,
MD. Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb158.pdf.
19. Institute of Medicine Committee on Identifying and Preventing Medication Errors. Preventing
Medication Errors: Quality Chasm Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
2006.
20. Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, Mendelsohn AB, Schroeder TJ, Annest JL. National
surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA.
2006;296(15):1858-66.
21. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug
events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(21):2002-12.
22. Cresswell KM, Fernando B, Mckinstry B, Sheikh A. Adverse drug events in the elderly. Br Med
Bull. 2007;83:259-74.
23. Wachter R. In Conversation with..J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, MA. Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality: WebM&M Interview (2006). Available from:
http://webmm.ahrq.gov/perspective.aspx?perspectiveID=34.

Introduction
24. Salvi F, Marchetti A, Dangelo F, Boemi M, Lattanzio F, Cherubini A. Adverse drug events as a
cause of hospitalization in older adults. Drug Saf. 2012;35 Suppl 1:29-45.
25. Vincent GK, Victoria AV. The next four decades, the older population in the United States: 2010
to 2050, Current Population Reports, P25e1138, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 2010.
Available from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf.
26. Keehan SP, Cuckler GA, Sisko AM, Madison AJ, Smith SD, Lizonitz JM, et al. National health
expenditure projections: modest annual growth until coverage expands and economic growth
accelerates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(7):1600-12.
27. Board of Trustees. 2013 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital
Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. Available from:
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-
Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/TrusteesReports.html.
28. Sarkar U, Lpez A, Maselli JH, Gonzales R. Adverse drug events in U.S. adult ambulatory medical
care. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(5):1517-33.
29. Nayar P, Yu F, Apenteng BA. Frontier Americas Health System Challenges and Population
Health Outcomes. J Rural Health. 2013;29(3):258-65.
30. Enriquez, M., Moormeier, J., & Lafferty, W. The management of chronic diseases in rural
Missouri practices. Missouri Medicine. 2012;109(3), 210-215.
31. Desroches CM, Worzala C, Joshi MS, Kralovec PD, Jha AK. Small, nonteaching, and rural
hospitals continue to be slow in adopting electronic health record systems. Health Aff
(Millwood). 2012;31(5):1092-9.
32. Xierali IM, Phillips RL, Green LA, Bazemore AW, Puffer JC. Factors Influencing Family Physician
Adoption of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26(4):388-93.
33. Afsar-manesh N, Martin NA. Healthcare reform from the inside: A neurosurgical clinical quality
program. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3:128.
34. Erlyana E, Damrongplasit KK, Melnick G. Expanding health insurance to increase health care
utilization: will it have different effects in rural vs. urban areas? Health Policy. 2011;100(2-
3):273-81.
35. Longo DR, Hewett JE, Ge B, Schubert S. Rural hospital patient safety systems implementation in
two States. J Rural Health. 2007;23(3):189-97.
36. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 2702, 124 Stat. 119, 318-
319 (2010).
37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-
associated Infections: Roadmap to Elimination. Washington, DC: April 2013. Available from:
http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/actionplan/#HAIActionPlan.

SECTION
National ADE Action Plan
1 Scope and Development
Scope of the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention
The National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Events Prevention addresses a defined group of ADEs that are
considered to be common, clinically significant, preventable, and measurable; resulting from high-
priority drug classes (i.e., anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids); and occurring largely in high-risk
populations (e.g., older adults). Preventable or ameliorable ADEs include medication errors (e.g., errors
in the dose of drug administered) or adverse events that are outcomes resulting from harm caused by
medical care that could have been mitigated in duration or severity by heightened monitoring or better
health care management [1].
The ADE Action Plan is intended to address direct patient harms from prescribed medication use [2].
The ADE Action Plan seeks to identify, collate, and communicate opportunities and gaps within Federal
systems and among external stakeholders. The ultimate goal is to strengthen and support health care
systems and providers in their efforts to ensure the safest care of their patients with regard to
preventing ADEs from a small group of high-priority drug classes. In addition, the ADE Action Plan
provides some insights on current evidence-based best practices, so that greater consistency in the
application of these practices can occur throughout the Nation, and identifies opportunities to drive
improvement. The overriding focus of the ADE Action Plan begins with the most fundamental charge to
health care systems and providers: First, do no harm.
Considering the breadth of harms resulting from medication use, the Federal Interagency Steering
Committee decided to narrow the focus of the ADE Action Plan, with the intent of expanding the plan to
a wider array of topics and drug classes in the future. Thus, the ADE Action Plan does not address
circumstances beyond the therapeutic use of medications, such as illicit or recreational drug use, drug
withdrawal, or use of medications in acts of intentional self-harm (e.g., suicide or suicide attempts).
Other important public health issues, such as nonadherence to medication regimens, undertreatment of
diseases, and underutilization of chemo-prophylaxis are also excluded from the focus of the ADE Action

Section 1 | National ADE Action Plan Scope and Development
Plan. The ADE Action Plan is not intended to serve as a clinical document or guideline, or a replacement
for currently established, evidence-based clinical- and laboratory-guided strategies for preventing or
reducing ADEs.
Framework for the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention
In designing an ADE Action Plan, the Steering Committee considered several models for ensuring a
comprehensive focus in the effort to reduce ADEs. Leaders of each Federal Interagency Workgroup
(FIW) agreed that the National Strategy for Quality Improvement (National Quality Strategy) addressed
all of the challenges and incorporated all of the principles necessary to provide guidance in the
development of ADE prevention strategies and advancement opportunities [3]. The National Quality
Strategy (NQS), a requirement of the Affordable Care Act, is a nationwide effort to align public and
private interests to improve the quality of health and health care for all Americans. Under the
leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NQS was developed using a
collaborative process that solicited input from a wide range of stakeholders across the health care
system. The strategy addresses health care delivered in all health settings and acknowledges the unique
roles of the patient, his/her family, the health care provider, and the community (including State and
local public health departments) in successfully achieving the goals. The NQS is defined by three aims
(patient care, community health, and efficiency) and outlines six priorities to achieve these aims:
1) Safer Care
2) Informed Patient and Family Engagement
3) Communication and Care Coordination
4) Science-Driven Prevention and Treatment
5) Promoting Best Practices Within the Community
6) Innovative Delivery Models To Achieve Affordable Care
These priorities embody the principles and approaches that can effectively reduce ADEs and create a
culture of safety around the effective use of medications. The first five NQS priorities have been used to
frame each of the drug class-specific prevention sections of the ADE Action Plan. The sixth priority is
included in the section on Incentives and Oversight Opportunities. One of the key principles in the ADE
Action Plan is a focus on patient-centered care and patient participation in the delivery of health care.

This patient-oriented focus is essential to ensuring the successful management of chronic conditions
that lead to the use of most prescribed medications. The NQS also addresses the unique nature of each
patients clinical history and acknowledges that many patients experience multiple chronic conditions
and may need a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to avoid ADEs.
Development Process for the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention
To develop the ADE Action Plan, the FIWs followed a systematic approach in which they
Facilitated discussions among the Federal partners to identify opportunities and gaps in cross-
agency coordination and alignment in four areas: surveillance, prevention, incentives and
oversight policies, and research (unanswered questions)
Conducted an initial environmental scan of existing Federal resources, medical literature, and
clinical guidelines that address the four areas
Evaluated and catalogued resources and initiatives to determine their pertinence to ADE
prevention
Performed a gap analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of current resources and
develop recommendations to strengthen existing resources
Engaged non-Federal subject matter expert consultants in the FIW discussions, so that they
could contribute their expertise in addressing ADEs in each of the three drug class areas, define
best practices, and provide recommendations for enhancing resources in ways that could
support health care systems and providers
Consequently, the ADE Action Plan reflects the perspectives of a broad group of Federal Agencies and
non-Federal subject matter expert consultants, and identifies opportunities to leverage existing
resources and initiatives in the field of ADE prevention.
Organization of the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention

Using the model established by the Steering Committee for the National Action Plan To Prevent
Healthcare-Associated Infections, the ADE Steering Committee identified key focus areas that
corresponded to the most immediate areas for consideration in understanding and preventing ADEs
associated with anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids:

SurveillanceCoordinate existing Federal surveillance resources and data to assess the health
burden and rates of ADEs.
PreventionShare existing evidence-based prevention tools across Federal Agencies and with
non-Federal health care providers and patients.
Incentives and OversightExplore opportunities, including financial incentives and oversight

authorities, to promote ADE prevention.
ResearchIdentify current knowledge gaps and future research needs (unanswered questions)
for ADE prevention.
Considerations for how health information technology (health IT) can be leveraged to advance ADE
prevention are also incorporated throughout the ADE Action Plan. At the onset, the ADE Steering
Committee and FIWs recognized the potential for health IT to support all aspects of the ADE Action Plan,
including measurement, incentives, quality measure development and reporting, and prevention.
Examples of how health IT can potentially support the ADE Action Plan are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. Examples of How Health Information Technology Can Support Goals of the ADE Action Plan
Focus Area Health IT Feature Impact
Surveillance Electronic data transmission Real-time data reporting
Reduced provider burden
Improved patient access to health information
Prevention Clinical decision support Flowsheets
e-prescribing
Patient panels
Implementation of clinical guidelines
Sharing best practices
Incentives Electronic health records Meaningful Use
Research Data repositories Answer research questions
Identify best practices
Develop new research questions
Furthermore, leveraging health IT helps align the ADE Action Plan with goals outlined in the Federal
Health Information Technology Strategic Plan. In November 2011, the HHS Office of the National
Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) released the Federal Health Information Technology Strategic Plan,
which identified achieving rapid learning as one of its five priority goals to advance by 2015 [4].
Through the establishment of a Learning Health Care System, health IT could aid in the identification

of effective interventions to prevent ADEs and accelerate integration of ADE surveillance and prevention
strategies into clinical practice. A Learning Health Care System also has the potential to answer
additional research questions to help advance the field of medication safety.
The Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program (e.g. Meaningful Use),
which provides incentive payments for eligible professionals and hospitals that meet certain
requirements in the use of an EHR, also represents a tremendous opportunity to leverage health IT
resources to further the prevention of ADEs, while increasing opportunities for measuring progress.
Currently, very few medication safety-specific targets are included in stage 2 of meaningful use for the
EHR Incentive Programand even fewer are included that address the high-priority medication classes
associated with the most preventable morbidity in inpatient and outpatient settings [Table 2]. The
current Core Measure requirements under Meaningful Use only address the need for documentation in
the EHR of a current patient medication list, and the remaining medication safety-related measures are
categorized under Clinical Quality Measures (CQMs), from which professionals and hospitals must select
a preset number of measures on a menu list. These measures are less likely than Core Measures to be
implemented. Furthermore, some of the medication safety-related CQMs do not uniformly reflect the
most recent evidence on the sources of the highest burden of medication-related harms (e.g., use of
high risk [or Beers Criteria] medications may not be optimal choices for older adults, but other
medications are far more likely to result in ADEs) [5, 6, 7].
Table 2. 2014 EHR Incentive Program Core and Clinical Quality Measures Related to Medication Safety
[8, 9, 10]
Core Measures Use computerized provider order entry (CPOE) for medication orders (EP Core 1)
Medication reconciliation (EP Core 14)
Clinical Quality Use of high-risk medications in the elderly (CMS156v1) (EP)
Measures Documentation of current medications in the medical record (CMS68v2) (EP)
Warfarin Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) (CMS179v1) (EP)
VTE patients receiving unfractionated heparin with dosages/platelet count monitoring
by protocol (or nomogram) (CMS eMeasure ID 109) (EH)
VTE patients receiving warfarin discharge instructions (CMS eMeasure ID 110) (EH)
Abbreviations: EHR = electronic health record; EH = eligible hospital; EP = eligible professional; VTE = venous
thromboembolism
Limitations of Health Information Technology

Throughout the ADE Action Plan, health IT is considered a tool, not a stand-alone solution for advancing
ADE prevention efforts. Access to health IT is a valuable resource for health care providers and their
patients across all health care settings, but there are a number of challenges associated with its

successful and more widespread adoption, such as costs of implementation and current limitations in
data exchange and interoperability [11]. These limitations are acknowledged in the ADE Action Plan,
and use of health IT is viewed as one of several strategies that can be implemented to enhance, not
replace, delivery of optimal clinical care to prevent ADEs.
References
1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Adverse Drug Event (ADE), in Patient Safety
Network: Glossary. Available from: http://psnet.ahrq.gov/glossary.aspx.
2. Nebeker JR, Barach P, Samore MH. Clarifying adverse drug events: a clinicians guide to
terminology, documentation, and reporting. Ann Intern Med 2004;140(10):795-801.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report to Congress: National Strategy for
Quality Improvement in Health Care. Washington (DC): The Department, March 2011.
4. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Federal Health IT
Strategic Plan. 2011. Available from: http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-
implementers/health-it-strategic-planning.
events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 2011;365:200212.
6. Budnitz DS, Shehab N, Kegler SR, Richards CL. Medication use leading to emergency department
visits for adverse drug events in older adults. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:755-65.
7. Smith HS, Lesar TS. One more Beers? Its time to STOPP! The need for better tools to guide
medication prescribing. Pain Physician 2011;14:E501-4.
8. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Stage 2 Eligible Hospital and Critical Access
Hospital (CAH): Meaningful Use Core and Menu Objectives. October 2012. Available from:
http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-
Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/Stage2_MeaningfulUseSpecSheet_Tab
leContents_EligibleHospitals_CAHs.pdf.
9. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Clinical Quality Measures for 2014 CMS EHR
Incentive Programs for Eligible Professionals. January 2013. Available from:
Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/EP_MeasuresTable_Posting_CQMs.pd
f.
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Clinical Quality Measures finalized for Eligible
Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals Beginning with FY2014. 2013. Available from:
Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/2014_CQM_EH_FinalRule.pdf.

11. DePhillips III HA. Initiatives and barriers to adopting health information technology: a US
perspective. Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 2007;15(1):1-6.

SECTION
2 Surveillance Resources
This section of the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention (ADE Action Plan) reviews the
ways the burden and rates of ADEs can be measured to monitor the progress in prevention at a
population-based level.
Specifically, this section
1) Describes considerations for choosing surveillance data sources and metrics
2) Briefly identifies existing Federal ADE surveillance systems and reviews their operating
characteristics
3) Addresses future considerations for optimizing Federal ADE surveillance efforts
Opportunities for advancing surveillance to drive improvement are then outlined within each of these
sections.
Considerations for Choosing Surveillance Data Sources and Metrics
Public health surveillance is defined as the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation
of health data, essential to the planning, implementation and evaluation of public health practice,
closely integrated with the dissemination of these data to those who need to know and linked to
prevention and control [1]. Indeed, public health surveillance metrics and systems may address a wide
variety of issues, use a wide variety of methodologies, and be conducted in numerous settings.
To identify surveillance data sources and metrics that would be most useful for assessing the public
health impact of ADEs, a number of issues should be considered.

Section 2 | Surveillance Resources
General Surveillance System Considerations
Quantification Versus Signal Detection

Public health surveillance can be used to quantify the scope and magnitude of known public health
issues (e.g., disease tracking/quantification). Public health surveillance can also be conducted to identify
new or previously unrecognized health issues (e.g., outbreak/signal detection). In choosing surveillance
metrics for the ADE Action Plan, emphasis should first be placed on quantifying clinically recognized
ADEs already identified as having significant public health impact (i.e., ADEs from anticoagulants,
diabetes agents, and opioids). Once metrics are established to quantify these clinically recognized ADEs,
identifying ADEs from medication classes that may not be as readily amenable to recognition and
documentation (i.e., signal detection) can then be addressed.
Active Surveillance Versus Passive Surveillance (Voluntary Reporting)

Active surveillance involves proactively collecting information on a health condition. Active surveillance
traditionally involves collecting primary data from health records or patients but can also involve
targeted queries of databases containing previously collected health information (e.g., administrative
claims data, EHR data). In contrast, passive surveillance typically relies on clinicians or patients to
voluntarily report information to a surveillance system. Although voluntary (i.e., spontaneous) reporting
can be crucial for identifying outbreaks (e.g., clusters of ADEs of unusually high magnitude) or previously
unidentified or underappreciated adverse effects, active surveillance is the method that is typically
required to reliably quantify scope and magnitude of a health problem and to assess trends.
Actual Harms/Injuries Versus Potential Problems/Medication Errors

Health surveillance can be carried out to identify potential problems or risk factors that may lead to
patient injury (e.g., medication errors that can potentially lead to ADEs, potential medication-related
problems brought about by polypharmacy); however, potential problems and risk factors do not
necessarily lead to actual patient harm. Identifying potential problems may be useful for screening
patients and targeting prevention efforts, but surveillance of actual patient injuries (e.g., hemorrhage,
hypoglycemia, and loss of consciousness) should be prioritized whenever possible to evaluate the
national health impact of large-scale or population-based ADE prevention efforts.
Although efforts to reduce medication errors are important, surveillance for medication errors is
complicated by a number of factors. Determination of error is often subjective, dependent on voluntary
reporting, and assigns or at least implies fault or blame. In addition, the large majority of medication

errors do not cause patient harm [2, 3]. Error reporting may be critical for monitoring safety within
individual facilities, but using error reporting for national ADE surveillance poses substantial challenges
in evaluating the impact of large-scale or population-based ADE prevention efforts on actual harms.
Considerations Specific to ADE Surveillance
Adverse Drug Events

ADE surveillance requires identification of an injury (e.g., hemorrhage, hypoglycemia, loss of
consciousness, and/or associated laboratory abnormalities) and attribution of that injury to drug
exposure. This complicates the interpretation of surveillance based on administrative claims data (i.e.,
International Classification of Diseases ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM coding) because administrative coding
was not designed with the intent of conducting ADE surveillance, is variably used, and lacks the
necessary linkage of outcomes of interest (harms) to the drugs. Even if administrative data can be used
to identify which individuals received a drug and experienced an event, it may not be possible to
determine if the event was an ADE or an independent event. Diagnostic codes that incorporate
attribution of an adverse event to a drug (i.e., External Causes of Injury Codes [E-codes]) are
underutilized and have been found to lack sensitivity for capturing ADEs [4]. Laboratory data may aid in
identifying some ADEs, but not all ADEs are amenable to capture by way of laboratory triggers, and
laboratory data are not uniformly available across all Federal surveillance data sources.
One way to address the limitations of administrative claims data is reviewing clinical documentation,
which can provide detailed data for determining drug-induced injuries. Because surveillance based on
reviewing clinical documentation can be resource-intensive and may be more prone to subjectivity, ADE
surveillance based on clinical documentation has utilized sampling techniques and algorithmic detection
methods [5, 6]. In research studies, detailed clinical review has been used to identify the absence of a
medication (because of patient nonadherence, undertreatment, or omission) as a medication-related
problem [7]. Although important for optimizing medication management, conducting national
surveillance for adverse events attributable to such issues as undertreatment or medication omission is
beyond the initial scope of this particular ADE Action Plan.
Medication Use/Drug Denominators

Although assessing the number of ADEs is a primary goal of surveillance, the number of patients being
exposed to those drugs is also a very important consideration. If drug use varies over time, metrics that
include drug use may aid in the interpretation of ADE incidence or burden by placing these estimates in
the context of rates. Although reductions in the absolute number of ADEs may be observed over time,

absolute reductions may not be evident if medication use increases. Therefore, examining evolving
trends over time in such factors as prescribing, medication use, and chronic disease burden will be
important in assessing the impact of large-scale or population-based ADE prevention interventions.
Severity
Like most health conditions, adverse drug events can vary in severity. A common approach to
surveillance is to start conducting surveillance on more serious outcomes (e.g., deaths, hospitalizations,
ED visits), followed by surveillance of less serious events (e.g., visits for nonemergent care, such as
physician offices, and self-treated incidents).
Setting
Surveillance commonly focuses on a specific setting (e.g., hospital or clinic) and may then expand to
other settings (e.g., ambulatory care, long-term care facilities). The setting where the ADE is treated
often differs from the setting where the exposure occurs. Using the admitting diagnosis or the first
diagnosis can assist in determining where the event occurred.
Scope
For an ADE Action Plan that is national in scope, nationally representative data are most applicable. Due
to cost constraints, most surveillance systems that are national in scope utilize statistical sampling to
project national estimates, using data from selected sites.
Timeliness
Timeliness of surveillance data is important to link data to prevention and control actions.
Prevention Patterns
Finally, not all events under surveillance must be patient harms. If the effectiveness of a prevention
strategy has been established, surveillance, including by pharmacist review, could be used to measure
penetration of that strategy and provide further context to changes in trends.
Federal Systems That Conduct ADE Surveillance
Federal surveillance systems vary in the populations surveyed, focus, geographic scope, data sources,
and collection methods, as well as the definitions and approaches utilized to capture anticoagulant,
diabetes agent, and opioid ADEs. Collectively, these systems point to opportunities and challenges for
Federal partners to optimize ADE surveillance efforts that are addressed in further detail under each of

the high-priority drug sections that appear later in the ADE Action Plan. Currently available Federal
surveillance systems for conducting ADE surveillance and their operational characteristics are
summarized in Appendix B. Only Federally supported surveillance systems that are currently utilized to
conduct ongoing ADE surveillance are included. These surveillance systems use three general methods:
active identification of adverse events from clinical records, passive reporting of adverse events, or
searches of administrative and/or clinical databases for codes or values indicating adverse events.
1) Active nationally representative adverse event-monitoring systems based on structured medical

record review include
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring
System (MPSMS)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Electronic Injury Surveillance
SystemCooperative Adverse Drug Events Surveillance System (NEISS-CADES)
2) Passive national adverse event-reporting systems include
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)
3) Systems that identify adverse events from administrative claims databases include
AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS),
State Inpatient Databases (SID), and Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS)
FDA Sentinel Initiative, Mini-Sentinel Pilot
Although they may not be nationally representative, the following Federal integrated health networks
also conduct adverse event surveillance and may incorporate all three general methods:
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) quality improvement programs
Department of Defense (DOD) Patient Safety Reporting System
Indian Health Service (IHS) Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS-EHR)
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Integrated Databases/Adverse Drug Event Reporting

System (VA ADERS)
The Federal passive (voluntary) reporting systems, such as FDAs FAERS, NIHs Drug-Induced Liver Injury
Network (DILIN), and VHAs VA ADERS, were constructed to identify (and have identified many) signals
of previously unrecognized, underappreciated, or rare ADEs. To do so, they were designed to include

reports in which the adverse event may or may not be related to the identified drug. They are not
designed for complete accounting of ADEs or calculating population-based estimates. Patient Safety
Organizations (PSOs) are independent, non-Federal voluntary reporting systems authorized under the
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 that may also be useful for signal detection and
local reporting, but these organizations are not national in scope and may not focus on ADEs.
Federal active surveillance systems can provide estimates and rates of ADEs based on data compiled from
millions of administrative claims. AHRQs HCUP and FDAs Sentinel Initiative utilize administrative claims
and ICD-9-CM codes to enumerate the risks of medication-related harms. However, claims data have
limited ability to control for certain variables (e.g., co-morbidities) that may confound the link between
drugs and certain outcomes and to assess medication adherence. Currently, Sentinel covers more than
125 million lives, which does not constitute a nationally representative sample, but for specific studies,
FDAs Sentinel Initiative has the potential to access health records to confirm coded data or provide
additional data. HCUP data can be extrapolated to provide national estimates, as well as regional- and
State-level estimates for specific common ADEs.
By using structured clinical record review, AHRQs MPSMS is able to provide population-based national
estimates and rates for specific ADEs (ADEs due to anticoagulants and diabetes agents) in hospitalized
patients and to examine correlations with other types of adverse events among the same patients (e.g.,
pressure ulcers, infections). CDCs National Electronic Injury Surveillance SystemCooperative Adverse
Drug Event Surveillance (NEISS-CADES) project can provide annual national estimates of emergency
department visits and emergent hospitalizations attributed to harms from outpatient therapeutic drug
use (excluding abuse or self-harm). Strengths of the system include its case identification method of
reviewing free-text narratives of each case, which may provide additional contextual information on
medication-related overdoses that are related to therapeutic use and errors. However, because both
MPSMS and NEISS-CADES utilize statistical sampling from a national frame, regional or State-based
estimates cannot be calculated or tied to local quality improvement efforts.
CDCs National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical
Care Survey (NHAMCS) provide annual national estimates on the utilization of ambulatory medical care
in the United States. [8]. These sample surveys of visits can capture outpatient ADEs, as reported by E-
codes found in the ICD-9-CM. Although these surveys are useful for calculating overall estimates of
outpatient ADEs [9, 10], they are limited in the information they can provide on ADEs because of the
small sample size of such visits in NAMCS and NHAMCS. CDC plans to integrate NHAMCS National

Hospital Discharge Survey and the Drug Abuse Warning Network into the National Hospital Care Survey,
which will provide the ability to link patients within the same sampled hospital to outside data sources
[11].
VHAs active surveillance system focuses on quality improvement for a selected population, utilizing the
VHAs inpatient and outpatient care settings. The system comprises a comprehensive Drug Use
Evaluation (DUE) program and a Medication Use Evaluation Tool (MUET), which identify patients at high
risk for ADEs on the basis of pharmacy, laboratory, and diagnostic triggers. The system is an example of
using facility-level surveillance data to assist health care providers in real-time decisionmaking to
mitigate risks of ADEs in patients.
The BOP, DOD, VHA, and IHS also have systems that leverage both passive and active surveillance
strategies, with a focus on quality improvement for the populations under their care (Appendix B).
Figure 5 highlights the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the Federal systems that can
be used to conduct ADE surveillance.
Figure 5. Strengths and Limitations of Federal Systems That Conduct ADE Surveillance [12]
S: Strengths W: Weaknesses
Inpatient and outpatient settings addressed Some critical settings unaddressed (e.g., long-term
Majority capture ADEs from high-priority drug care facilities, transitions of care)
targets (i.e., anticoagulants, diabetes agents, Highly variable sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV
opioids) of diagnostic and procedural coding (i.e., ICD-9-CM
Flexibility and CPT) in capturing ADEs (i.e., not designed or
intended for ADE surveillance)
Variable in their ability to link outcomes (harms) of
interest to drugs
Timeliness
O: Opportunities T: Threats
Harnessing of large datasets through public Funding to support ongoing analyses of surveillance
private collaborations (e.g., FDA Sentinel data
Initiative)
Leveraging of linked EHRs and new
communication technologies
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; EHRs = electronic health records; ICD-9-CM =
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative
predictive value

Future Considerations for Optimizing Federal ADE Surveillance Efforts
Existing Federal systems provide a starting point for national surveillance of adverse events from
anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids. Future considerations to optimize Federal ADE
surveillance efforts are outlined in the following sections.
Refine and improve existing national systems

National surveillance using population-based sampling or administrative data is an efficient way of
collecting nationally representative data on ADEs. Because administrative data collection and coding
systems were not designed for the primary intent of ADE surveillance, mapping existing codes (e.g., ICD)
and data collection (e.g., present on admission) to ADEs should be validated. However, it may be
necessary to revise coding systems with ADE quantification in mind or consider alternative approaches
to support better documentation of ADEs similar to the current approach used to document drug
allergies. NEISS-CADES data are currently used to chart progress of the Healthy People 2020 objectives
to reduce emergency visits for overdoses of oral anticoagulants and injectable diabetes agents (i.e.,
insulin). AHRQ is currently developing measures for specific (drug-type) ADEs that build on the current
MPSMS ADE definitions, for use in the new Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS). There are ongoing
opportunities to refine and validate the identification of specific ADEs from administrative and clinical
databases. In addition, data on medication use that can be used to calculate ADE rates are needed to
interpret whether changes in the number of ADEs may be caused by safety changes or changing
patterns of medication use.
Opportunities for Clinical Setting Surveillance

Although national monitoring is useful for identifying burden and monitoring progress, actually
preventing ADEs requires action by individual providers and patients at the health system level and,
thus, an understanding of facility-level burden and trends in ADEs. The National Healthcare Safety
Network (NHSN) is one example of how individual facility-level reporting of health care-associated
infections (HAIs) has facilitated improved understanding of HAI burden, enabled facility-level prevention
efforts, and driven national-level improvements in HAI burden [13]. Refining the next version of AHRQ
Common Formats for reporting specific ADEs could provide another opportunity to facilitate reporting,
analysis, and reduction of ADEs in individual facilities across the Nation. Quality and safety initiatives in
anticoagulation management, hypoglycemic event monitoring, and opioid optimization that incorporate
surveillance may also provide the opportunity for innovations. Surveillance innovations may be found in
non-Federal collaboratives [14, 15] as well as in Federal integrated health networks.

Role of Federal Agencies That Provide Direct Patient Care

Federal Agencies that provide care for specific populations (e.g., BOP, DOD, HRSA, IHS, VHA) play an
important role in facilitating the infrastructure necessary for monitoring ADEs at regional or facility
levels, in rural settings, and in low-resourced settings. Collaborating on monitoring methods across
Federal Agencies that directly care for patients at risk for ADEs, as well as collaborating with non-Federal
partners such as PSOs, could aid the efficacy and efficiency of efforts. This would require an
administrative structure to foster such ongoing collaborations and communication in this area.
References
1. Thacker SB, Berkelman RL. History of public health surveillance. In: Halperin W, Editor. Public
Health Surveillance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1992: 1-15.
2. Latif A, Rawat N, Pustavoitau A, Pronovost PJ, Pham JC. National study on the distribution,
causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported medication errors between the ICU and non-
ICU settings. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):389-98.
3. Kale A, Keohane CA, Maviglia S, Gandhi TK, Poon EG. Adverse drug events caused by serious
medication administration errors. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(11):933-8.
4. Leonard CE, Haynes K, Localio AR, Hennessy S, Tjia J, Cohen A, et al. Diagnostic E-codes for
commonly used, narrow therapeutic index medications poorly predict adverse drug events. J
Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):561-71.
2006;296(15):1858-66.
6. Classen DC, Jaser L, Budnitz DS. Adverse drug events among hospitalized Medicare patients:
epidemiology and national estimates from a new approach to surveillance. Jt Comm J Qual
Patient Saf. 2010;36(1):12-21.
7. Hohl CM, Yu E, Hunte GS, Brubacher JR, Hosseini F, Argent CP, et al. Clinical decision rules to
improve the detection of adverse drug events in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg
Med. 2012;19(6):640-9.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/about_ahcd.htm
9. Zhan C, Arispe I, Kelley E, Ding T, Burt C, Shinogle J, Stryer D. Ambulatory care visits for treating
adverse drug effects in the United States: 1995-2001. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf.
2005;31(7):372-378.
10. Bouregeois FT, Shannon MW, Valim C, Mandl KD. Adverse drug events in the outpatient setting:
an 11-year national analysis. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Safety. 2010 Sept; 19(9)901-10.

11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About the Ambulatory Health Care Surveys.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd/about_ahcd.htm
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health
surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. MMWR.
2001;50(No. RR-13):1-35.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). 2013.
Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/.
14. Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative. 2013. Available from:
http://maqi2.org/.
15. Society of Hospital Medicine. Quality initiatives: glycemic control. 2008. Available from:
http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/html/06Track_Perf/02_Introducing_
Gluco.cfm.

SECTION
3 Prevention Approaches
Multiple factors may contribute to ADEs that occur in inpatient, outpatient, and other health care
settings (e.g., long-term care facilities, group homes), or during care transitions. The delivery of safe
health care depends on the creation of a reliable health care system that considers systems,
organizational, technical, provider, and patient factors that may contribute to harm.
Key Determinants of Preventable ADEs
The Joint Commission patient safety event taxonomy model helps to potentially identify key
determinants of ADEs [1]. This model categorizes root causes of patient safety events into proximate
(e.g., human) and latent (e.g., organizational and system) factors.
As part of a continuous quality improvement approach to health care, The Joint Commission requires a
root cause analysis to investigate factors that contribute to a sentinel event [2]. The fishbone diagram in
Figure 6 presents selected proximate and latent determinants of preventable ADEs. The literature
suggests that ADEs in all health care settings may arise from a combination of patient, provider, and
health care system factors. Although the key determinants presented in Figure 6 may not be implicated
in all health care settings or patient situations, they should be considered in root cause analyses, as any
one of the determinants may lead to an ADE.

Section 3 | Prevention Approaches
Figure 6. Fishbone Diagram: Select Determinants of Preventable Adverse Drug Events
Proximate factors that contribute to ADEs include those that involve the patient and/or provider.
Considering the patient-centered care approach supported by the National Quality Strategy, it is
important to note patient factors that may contribute to ADEs. A number of proximate factors place
older adults at particular risk for ADEs. For example, altered pharmacokinetics, use of multiple
medications, and potential for medication mismanagement due to cognitive decline or physical frailty
contribute to ADEs in older adults [3, 4, 5]. Patients with multiple chronic conditions are also more likely
to be prescribed more than five medications, many of which may be high-risk medications and increase
the risk of drugdrug interactions [3]. Older adults also frequently have multiple providers, which may
result in uncoordinated or poorly coordinated care [5]. In addition, older adults are at increased risk for
nonadherence or misuse of medications [6, 7].
Other proximate factors that contribute to individual/patient risk of ADEs include inherited factors and
health literacy. Inherited factors can affect the kinetics and dynamics of numerous drugs and may
include genetic variation in genes for drug-metabolizing enzymes, drug receptors, and drug transporters,

which have been associated with individual variability in the toxicity of drugs [8]. Poor health literacy
also has been implicated as a contributing factor to ADEs [6].
Provider factors that may contribute to ADEs involve physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and caregivers
who are certified to administer medication. As indicated in Figure 6, these may include errors in
medication prescribing, dispensing, or administration [6, 7, 9, 10].
Once proximate factors are identified, emphasis should be on system-related factors that may have
contributed to the ADE [3, 6, 10, 11]. Latent key determinants that may contribute to ADEs are
systemic, organizational, or technical. Systemic factors may include failure to incorporate key health
literacy principles [12], limited provider time to adequately explain information [6], poor coordination of
care [7, 13], or formulary restriction on use of certain types of medications (particularly opioids) [14].
Organizational factors include those involving the institutional patient safety culture, leadership, and
high provider workload [2, 3, 9]. Lastly, technical factors are those related to medical product design
and include materials or medications that look similar, or materials that are difficult to use [2].
Organizations may use this model of key determinants of ADEs to ensure that patient, provider,
technical, organizational, and systemic factors are considered in efforts to prevent ADEs. Organizations
may conduct a careful root cause analysis of ADEs that identifies underlying causes and potential targets
for intervention, with the goal of preventing their recurrence. By determining and verifying probable
causal pathways that led to the adverse drug event, root cause analysis allows organizations to identify
appropriate corrective and/or preventive actions, as well as to encourage the development of a culture
of safety. Implementing such quality improvement initiatives is in direct support of the National Quality
Strategy, which strives to make health care safer for all Americans.
Affordable Care ActHealth Care Delivery Models
Several innovative health care delivery models authorized in the Affordable Care Act are crucial to
improving the sustainability of the health care system, reducing costs, and improving quality of care for
patients. Models that potentially can be leveraged to further target high-priority ADEs include: patient-
centered medical homes (PCMHs), Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and team-based health care.
Summaries of these models can be found in Appendix C.

References
1. Chang A, Schyve PM, Croteau RJ, OLeary DS, Loeb JM. The JCAHO patient safety event
taxonomy: a standardized terminology and classification schema for near misses and adverse
events. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(2):95-105.
2. Rex JH, Turnbull JE, Allen SJ, Vande voorde K, Luther K. Systematic root cause analysis of
adverse drug events in a tertiary referral hospital. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26(10):563-75.
3. Cresswell KM, Fernando B, Mckinstry B, Sheikh A. Adverse drug events in the elderly. Br Med
Bull. 2007;83:259-74.
4. Wachter R. In Conversation with..J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, MA. Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality: WebM&M Interview (2006). Available from:
http://webmm.ahrq.gov/perspective.aspx?perspectiveID=34.
5. Salvi F, Marchetti A, Dangelo F, Boemi M, Lattanzio F, Cherubini A. Adverse drug events as a
cause of hospitalization in older adults. Drug Safety. 2012;35 Suppl 1:29-45.
6. Brown M, Frost R, Ko Y, Woosley R. Diagramming patients' views of root causes of adverse drug
events in ambulatory care: an online tool for planning education and research. Patient Educ
Couns. 2006;62(3):302-15
7. Lu CY, Roughead E. Determinants of patient-reported medication errors: a comparison among
seven countries. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(7):733-40.
8. Meyer UA. Pharmacogenetics and adverse drug reactions. Lancet. 2000;356(9242):1667-71.
9. Senst BL, Achusim LE, Genest RP, Cosentino LA, Ford CC, Little JA, et al. Practical approach to
determining costs and frequency of adverse drug events in a health care network. Am J Health
Syst Pharm. 2001;58(12):1126-32.
10. Beckett RD, Sheehan AH, Reddan JG. Factors associated with reported preventable adverse
drug events: a retrospective, case-control study. Ann Pharmacother. 2012;46(5):634-41.
11. Mills PD, Neily J, Kinney LM, Bagian J, Weeks WB. Effective interventions and implementation
strategies to reduce adverse drug events in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. Qual Saf Health
Care. 2008;17(1):37-46.
12. Koh HK, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A proposed health literate care model would
constitute a systems approach to improving patients engagement in care. Health Aff
(Millwood). 2013;32(2):357-67.
13. Dekker S. Discontinuity and disaster: gaps and the negotiation of culpability in medication
delivery. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(3):463-70.
14. Webster LR, Cochella S, Dasgupta N, Fakata KL, Fine PG, Fishman SM, et al. An analysis of the
root causes for opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12 Suppl
2:S26-35.

SECTION
Incentives and Oversight
4 Opportunities
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)specifically, the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS)has a variety of tools within its statutory and regulatory authority to support
the prevention of ADEs [Appendix D]. These tools can be broadly classified as
Regulatory oversight activities (including Conditions of Participation (COPs), accreditation, and
survey and certification)
Value-based purchasing (VBP) programs and other financial incentives
Transparency and associated incentives
Medicare and Medicaid initiatives
This section discusses in detail the various ways in which these tools and initiatives are being used to
support the Nation's efforts to prevent ADEs.
Regulatory Oversight
The CMS developed Conditions of Participation (CoPs), Conditions for Coverage (CfCs),i and long-term
care facility (LTCF) requirementsii that hospitals and other providers and suppliers must meet to
participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These Federal health and safety requirements are
intended to ensure that high-quality care is provided to all patients and residents. All Medicare- and
Medicaid-participating providers and suppliers for which there are CoPs/CfCs are required to be in
compliance at all times. Compliance is assessed by CMS Federal surveyors, State Survey Agencies (SAs),
federally contracted surveyors, and national accreditation organizations (AOs) having CMS-approved
i
More information on the CoPs and CfCs is available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-
Guidance/Legislation/CFCsAndCoPs/index.html
ii
More information on the requirements for LTCFs is available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-
Guidance/Legislation/CFCsAndCoPs/LTC.html

Section 4 | Incentives and Oversight Opportunities
Medicare accreditation programs. CMS has regulatory requirements and interpretive guidelines related
to the prevention of ADEs for numerous health care providers and suppliers. The following section
describes some of these ADE-related regulations and guidelines.
Regulations and Interpretive Guidelines
Hospitals
The hospital CoPs address ADEs in two ways. First, in accordance with accepted standards of practice,
the CoPs address the establishment and implementation of policies and procedures to minimize errors
related to drugs and to internally report errors when they occur. Second, the CoPs address the
hospitals internal quality assessment and performance improvement process to track adverse events,
including ADEs; to analyze their causes; and implement preventive actions, including feedback and
learning throughout the hospital. In addition, the CMS survey and certification interpretive guidelines
provide a vehicle for a more specific discussion of best practices in ADE prevention and tracking.
Critical Access Hospitals

The critical access hospital (CAH) CoPs focus on internal reporting of adverse drug reactions and drug
administration errors in a manner similar to that required for traditional acute care hospitals.
Long-Term Care (LTC)

The LTC regulations that apply to institutional settings such as nursing homes contain many drug-related
requirements. Specifically, the regulations state that an LTC facility must ensure that it is free of
medication error rates of 5 percent or greater and that residents do not experience any significant
medication errors. The LTC facility regulations also require that each residents drug regimen be free
from unnecessary drugs, and focus on the adverse consequences associated with the use of a wide
variety of drugs. CMS provides extensive background and clinical information to improve the body of
knowledge surrounding the prescription and administration of drugs in the LTC setting. In particular,
CMS provides specific use and monitoring guidelines for anticoagulants, diabetes medications, and
opioids.
CMS requires that LTC facility residents be free from unnecessary drugs and, to minimize adverse
consequences related to drug therapy to the extent possible, the regulations also require that the drug
regimen of each resident be reviewed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist. Furthermore, the
regulations require that any irregularities be reported to the attending physician and the director of
nursing, and that facility staff act on these reports. The interpretive guidelines also discuss the drug-

related risks that are involved in care transitions, a period when drugs are often added, discontinued,
omitted, or changed, and how these increased risks necessitate the need for safeguards, such as drug
regimen review.
Home Health Agencies

The home health agency CoPs seek to prevent ADEs by ensuring that each patient receives a drug
regimen review as part of a comprehensive assessment that is conducted at the time the patient begins
home health care. The drug regimen review is updated at least once every 60 days. The review has a
particular focus on identifying potential adverse effects, drug interactions, duplicate drugs, and issues
related to patient noncompliance with the prescribed drug regimen. The interpretive guidelines for this
section state that, if any potential adverse effects and/or reactions are identified, the physician must be
notified. Because orders change frequently, the home health agency staff must be aware of any and all
changes as they occur, constantly reevaluating medications, compliance, interactions, and effectiveness
of the drug regimen.
Survey and Certificationiii

The survey and certification (S&C) program is designed to ensure that providers and institutional
suppliers comply with the CoPs/CfCs. When surveyors identify a deficiency, the provider or supplier is
required to take prompt action to ensure compliance, typically involving a plan of correction, which
must be reviewed and found acceptable by CMS, either through the survey agency or the accreditation
organization, if applicable, and then appropriately implemented.
Value-Based Purchasing Financial Incentives
Value-based purchasing is a mechanism that uses financial incentives to encourage all levels of health
care providers to improve quality of care.
Hospital Pay-for-Reportingiv
The Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (Hospital IQR) Program requires subsection (d) hospitals paid
under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) to report on different quality measures,
iii
More information on the S&C program is available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-
Certification/SurveyCertificationGenInfo/index.html?redirect=/surveycertificationgeninfo/
iv
More information on the Hospital IQR program is available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-
Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/HospitalRHQDAPU.html

including process, structure, outcome, patients experience of care, efficiency, and cost efficiency
measures. Performance on quality measures is publicly reported on the CMS Hospital Compare Web
site.v In implementing the Hospital IQR Program, CMS expects the measure set to continue to evolve on
the basis of factors such as program needs and high-priority areas. Through the Hospital IQR Program,
CMS has the authority to adopt quality measures addressing ADEs. Measures adopted for the Hospital
IQR Program may also be adopted for use in other CMS initiatives linking quality to payment, such as the
Hospital Value-Based Purchasing and the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Programs.
CMS Demonstration Projects and Models

The CMS Innovation Center develops and tests innovative payment and service delivery models. Within
this center, there are at least five programs that address ADEs; they are described in the following
sections.
Health Care Innovation Awards (HCIA)vi

The Health Care Innovation Awards provide funding to organizations that are implementing the most
compelling new ideas designed to deliver better health, improved care, and lower costs to people
enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Of the 107
currently funded projects, 48 include a focus on medication reconciliation or medication management
services.
Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) Modelvii

The Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) Model is designed to work in coordination with
private payers by aligning provider incentives to improve quality and health outcomes, while achieving
cost savings. The Pioneer ACO Model supports measuring and reducing ADEs, including efforts to
standardize decision support for safe medication management (e.g., medication reconciliation, allergy
checks, drug interaction checks, and checks for duplicate or contraindicated therapy). Specifically, one
Pioneer ACO measured and reported safety events of all types via safety reporting systems at each site
within its network. In regard to measurement approaches, system process measures (e.g.,
v
http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html
vi
More information on the Health Care Innovation Awards is available at:
http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Health-Care-Innovation-Awards/
vii
More information on the Pioneer ACO Model is available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Pioneer-ACO-
Model/

implementation of barcoding, computerized order entry, electronic prescribing, and anticoagulation

management services) were a primary focus.
Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP)viii

The Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) demonstration includes multipayer reform
initiatives that eight States are conducting to make advanced primary care practices more broadly
available. Two participating States include a focus on medication safety. In one State, networks of
community-based practices focus on medication safety through the provision of clinical pharmacy and
care management services. The focus is on high-risk patients, including those with multiple co-morbid
conditions and those at risk for complications from polypharmacy. Nurse care managers and clinical
pharmacists conduct medication reviews and reconciliations to identify and rectify expired, duplicate, or
incorrectly dosed medications. These providers also are tasked to identify reasons why patients might
not be taking their medicines as prescribed and to counsel patients taking multiple medications.
The other State uses an advanced health IT system that provides patient-level information on pharmacy
claims and medication history for point-of-care activities. The system also can generate population-
based reports to identify patients who may benefit from clinical pharmacy and care management
services. This system captures descriptions of clinical pharmacists activities and findings, previously
identified drugdrug interactions, expired medications, reconciled medications, suggested formulary
medications, and changes to lower cost medication. In addition, providers at practices with advanced
electronic health records (EHRs) receive alerts for patients who need refills, in order to keep track of
patients medications and to identify duplications and drugdrug interactions.
Community-Based Care Transitions Programix

The goals of the Community-Based Care Transitions Program (CCTP) are to improve transitions of high-
risk Medicare beneficiaries from the inpatient hospital setting to other care settings, including home. All
the CCTP sites provide medication reconciliation, and two are providing a separate pharmacy
intervention, whereby a pharmacist meets with the beneficiary, reviews the current medication
regimen, and attempts to optimize the regimen.
viii
More information on the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice is available at:
http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Multi-Payer-Advanced-Primary-Care-Practice/
ix
More information on the Community-based Care Transitions Program is available at:
http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/CCTP/

Partnership for Patientsx

The Partnership for Patients is a publicprivate partnership working to improve the quality, safety, and
affordability of health care for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiariesand, by extension, all
Americans. The Partnership involves physicians, hospitals, employers, patients and patient advocates,
and the Federal and State Governments to achieve two main goals:
1) Making care safer by reducing hospital-acquired conditions
2) Improving care transitions by decreasing preventable complications during transitions from one
health care setting to another
The Partnership has identified 10 core safety areas of focus, including adverse drug events. Working
with more than 3,700 hospitals across the United States, the program aims to eliminate approximately
1.8 million avoidable injuries.
Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries
The Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office (MMCO), partnered with the Center for Medicare &
Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), has launched the Initiative To Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations Among
Nursing Facility Residents.xi One goal of this initiative is to improve beneficiary safety by better
coordinating the management of prescription drugs, to reduce the risk of polypharmacy, improve
medication reconciliation, and prevent adverse drug events.
Hospital Value-Based Purchasing and the Affordable Care Actxii

With the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act, CMS launched the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing
(HVBP) Program, which provides powerful incentives, both financial and nonfinancial, to improve quality
of care. CMS is considering whether to propose ADE measures for future updates to the program to
reward high-quality performance.
x
More information on the Partnership for Patients is available at: http://partnershipforpatients.cms.gov/
xi
More information on the Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations Among Nursing Facility Residents is
available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/rahnfr/
xii
More information on the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program is available at:
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/hospital-value-based-
purchasing/index.html?redirect=/hospital-value-based-purchasing

Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programsxiii

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009 authorized
CMS to establish the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs for meaningful use of certified EHR
technology (Meaningful Use). In order to qualify for Meaningful Use incentive payments, each provider
category (eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals) must meet different
functional objectives.
Providers must report four measures related to ADEs:
Maintain active medication list
Maintain active medication allergy list
Implement drugdrug and drugallergy interaction checks
Implement clinical decision support rules
Also, there are specific measures that address the prevention or reduction of ADEs related to the three
main drug classes (anticoagulants, opioids, and diabetes agents). In the future, additional measures can
be developed and electronically specified for a more diverse range of ADE prevention and monitoring
measures.
Because existing EHR specifications that address high-priority ADE targets were limited, at the request of
the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), the FIWs for ADEs initiated discussions
among the Federal partners to identify possible requirements that the EHR Incentive Program might
consider to leverage EHR capabilities to further the state of ADE prevention and monitoring.
Recommendations from the three FIWs related to the potential for Meaningful Use to advance the
prevention of ADEs are addressed in the drug class-specific Incentives and Oversight sections.
Physician Quality Reporting Systemxiv

The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) provides a series of incentive payments to eligible
professionals (including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) for meeting
satisfactory reporting criteria on quality measures. Beginning in 2015, those who do not meet the
xiii
More information on the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs is available at:
http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Meaningful_Use.html
xiv
More information on the Physician Quality Reporting System is available at:
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/PQRS/index.html

criteria will receive negative payment adjustments. In an effort to align with Meaningful Use, PQRS
introduced two measures that address ADEs for the 2014 Program Year:
CMS68 (NQF #0419)Documentation of Current Medications in the Medical Record
CMS179ADE Prevention and Monitoring: Warfarin Time in Therapeutic Range
The PQRS historically held an annual call for measures during which stakeholders could submit their
quality measures for consideration in the program. Beginning in 2014, PQRS will move to a rolling call
for measures so that developers will be able to submit measures for inclusion in the program on an
ongoing basis. Through the call for measures and continuing alignment with other quality programs,
additional ADE measures could be introduced in the PQRS.
Physician Feedback Program/Value-Based Payment Modifierxv

The goals of the Physician Feedback/Value-Based Payment Modifier Program are to improve Medicare
beneficiary health outcomes and experience of care by using payment incentives and transparency to
encourage higher quality, more efficiently provided health care services. The Physician Feedback
Program provides confidential, comparative performance reports to physicians and clinician groups that
measure the resources involved in furnishing care and the quality of care provided to Medicare
beneficiaries. Beginning in 2015, CMS is also required to apply a separate, budget-neutral, value-based
payment modifier to the Physician Fee Schedule based upon a physicians or clinician groups quality of
care furnished as compared to cost during a performance period. CMS utilizes PQRS measures within
the quality component of the value-based payment modifier calculation. These measures may include
quality measures related to patient safety and any adverse drug event. CMS anticipates continued
enhancements to the quality and cost measures for the value-based payment modifier as additional
quality and resource use measures become available. This also would apply to any newly developed
ADE measures.
xv
More information on the Physician Feedback/Value Based Payment Modifier Program is available at:
http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-
Payment/PhysicianFeedbackProgram/index.html?redirect=/PHYSICIANFEEDBACKPROGRAM. The physician
compare tool is accessible at: http://www.medicare.gov/PhysicianCompare/search.html

Transparency and Associated Incentives
Public reporting of health care quality data supports transparency, encourages provider accountability,
and provides consumers access to information that will help them make more informed health care
decisions.
Hospital Comparexvi
The measures currently reported on the Hospital Compare Web site include those that are reported under
the Hospital Inpatient and Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting Programs (Hospital Pay for Reporting),
those used in the calculation of incentives under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, the
Hospital-Acquired Conditions Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reeducation Program, and additional
measures that many hospitals voluntarily report. Some of these measures are related to reduction of
ADEs.
Physician Comparexvii
The Affordable Care Act (2010) required CMS to establish a Physician Compare website that contains
information on physicians enrolled in the Medicare program as well as other eligible professionals who
participate in the Physician Quality Reporting System. The specific measures posted are addressed
annually through rulemaking.
Related Initiatives Addressing ADEs
In addition to the programs detailed above, CMS also oversees a variety of additional programs that
have the potential to advance nationwide efforts to prevent ADEs.
Quality Improvement Organizationsxviii

The Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) Program is a network of organizations staffed with physicians,
pharmacists, nurses, technicians, and statisticians who are experts in health care quality. Currently, each QIO
xvi
More information on Hospital Compare is available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-
Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/HospitalCompare.html. The hospital compare tool is
accessible at: http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html
xvii
More information on Physician Compare is available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-
Patient-Assessment-Instruments/physician-compare-initiative/
xviii
An overview of the Quality Improvement Organization program and the programs outlined in its current
statement of work is available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-
Instruments/QualityImprovementOrgs/index.html?redirect=/qualityimprovementorgs

is responsible for a U.S. State, territory, or the District of Columbia. The current contract (also known as the
10th Statement of Work) focuses on four aims: (1) Improving individual patient care, (2) beneficiary and
family-centered care, (3) integrating care for populations and communities, and (4) improving health for
populations and communities. The contract also focuses on the use of learning and action networks to
spread and sustain positive results. Specific QIO programs related to ADE efforts are outlined below.
Reducing Adverse Drug Events Aim

Under the current contract, CMS requires QIOs to contribute to the aim of reducing and preventing
ADEs and to provide medication-related quality improvement intervention strategies to health care
providers, practitioners, Medicare Advantage organizations, and prescription drug sponsors. QIOs are
tasked to participate in the Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Services Collaborative (PSPC) as part of
this aim.
The PSPC was initiated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and CMS, and is now
a CMS-directed initiative that integrates evidence-based clinical pharmacy services into the care and
management of high-risk, high-cost, and complex patients. As part of the PSPC, QIOs recruit and form
teams of community health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries to transform their health care
delivery systems to reduce ADEs. The QIOs also target specific populations of focus, including
beneficiaries taking diabetes agents, anticoagulants, and antipsychotics.
Nationally, the QIO program has developed innovative approaches and developed best practices to
reduce ADEs across several care settings. For example, one QIO has established a multidisciplinary
statewide anticoagulation coalition dedicated to improving anticoagulation quality and safety using
standardized dosing algorithms, root-cause analysis of potential ADEs, and connecting outcomes such as
readmissions to ADEs. Another QIO has done extensive work on measure development related to ADEs
that are suitable for national programs. Measure development efforts included both process and
outcome measures related to the use of anticoagulants and diabetes agents. The National Quality
Foundation (NQF) has endorsed two anticoagulant-related measures (NQF 555 and NQF 556) for use in
the ambulatory care setting.
In addition to implementing interventions and forming community team coalitions to reduce ADEs and
improve overall medication therapy management, QIOs are required to track and report measures.
Measures reported by QIOs include, across time, the overall rate of ADEs, the rate of potential ADEs,

and specific measures targeting three areas of focus: anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and antipsychotic
medications.
Improve Care Transitions and Decrease Readmissions

The Integrating Care for Populations and Communities Aim (ICPCA) under the 10th Scope of Work
includes interventions to improve effectiveness of pharmacotherapies that can be a driver of poor care
transitions and increased readmissions. Improving the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy includes
supporting a patients understanding of appropriate medication use and potential risk for adverse
events, adherence to medication regimens, and detection of adverse events and overuse or underuse.
These interventions also are meant to improve transfer of patient care between providers and to
improve information transfer between clinical settings.
Regional Efforts
Regional Chief Medical Officer Efforts

In response to the recommendation to enhance efforts to identify and reduce ADEs in all health care
settings, the regional CMS Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) collaborate directly with their peers in other
regions and key medical stakeholders in order to share and provide important information about quality
improvement initiatives. The CMS CMOs also participate in State and local programs, such as the
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. As CMOs present information on Affordable Care Act provisions,
the importance of reducing ADEs and medication errors is emphasized. The CMS CMOs also emphasize
the importance of being a meaningful user of EHRs as a means to reduce ADEs.
National Coverage Determinationsxix

CMS provides coverage to expedite the diagnosis of ADEs associated with anticoagulants and diabetes
agents. Coverage policies for diagnostic testing for these ADEs and other indications are explained in
detail within CMS National Coverage Determinations (NCDs).
Within the limits established by statute for Medicare benefits, five NCDs provide Medicare coverage for
a variety of diagnostic tests for detecting, mitigating, and preventing ADEs in beneficiaries being treated
with either anticoagulants or hypoglycemic agents.
xix
The list of all Medicare coverage determinations is available at: http://cms.hhs.gov/medicare-coverage-
database/overview-and-quick-search.aspx?list_type=ncd

Two NCDs directly relate to detecting and preventing ADEs in patients receiving oral anticoagulants, like
warfarin.
NCD #190.11 provides for Medicare coverage for home prothrombin time (PT) testing, to help
patients on warfarin test determine whether they may be out of therapeutic range. Home
testing for PT/international normalized ratio (INR) decreases the risk of major hemorrhage and
may improve warfarin compliance. This NCD was revised in 2008.
NCD #90.1 provides for Medicare coverage under certain conditions for pharmacogenomic
testing to inform physicians of gene variations that might increase or decrease a given patients
reaction to warfarin. Knowledge of the presence of gene variants may help predict the patients
ideal warfarin dose and lessen ADEs during the initial period of warfarin therapy. This NCD
became available in 2009. Medicare (through the coverage with evidence development
mechanism) is supporting ongoing clinical trials to determine this testings actual benefit to
patients.
Three NCDs directly relate to detection and prevention of ADEs in patients receiving diabetes agents,
such as insulin.
NCDs #40.1 and #40.2 provide Medicare coverage for home blood glucose monitoring (#40.2),
as well as outpatient self-management training (#40.1). In combination, these NCDs provide a
convenient way for patients with diabetes mellitus, working with their health care providers, to
monitor blood glucose levels and achieve appropriate glucose control. Convenient and timely
measurement of glucose levels can lead to adjustment of insulin dosage and help avoid the ADE
of insufficient blood glucose.
NCD #190.20 provides Medicare coverage for testing blood glucose levels in a clinical laboratory.
Such testing confirms a patients blood glucose level and may help physicians develop treatment
plans for managing patients with abnormal glucose metabolism (e.g., as occurs with diabetes
mellitus).
State Medicaid Drug Monitoring for ADEs in the Fee for Service Outpatient Pharmacy
Program
Prescription drug coverage is an optional benefit under Federal Medicaid law; however, all States
currently provide coverage for outpatient prescription drugs to most enrollees within their Medicaid
programs. The Medicaid prescription drug programs include the management, development, and

administration of systems and data collection necessary to operate the Medicaid Drug Rebate program,
the Federal Upper Limit calculation for multiple-source drugs, and the Drug Utilization Review (DUR)
Program.
The Medicaid DUR Programxx promotes patient safety through State-administered utilization
management tools and processes. The State Medicaid agencys electronic monitoring system screens
prescription drug claims to identify problems such as therapeutic duplication, drug-disease
contraindications, incorrect dosage or duration of treatment, drug allergy, and clinical misuse or abuse
in order to minimize or eliminate ADEs. DUR involves ongoing and periodic examination of claims data
to identify patterns of medically unnecessary care and implements corrective action when needed.
Summary
This Incentives and Oversight section reviewed the existing incentives and oversight opportunities that
encourage reductions in ADEs. As we move toward improved standardized measurement for ADEs,
there may be opportunities to take advantage of these currently existing mechanisms to promote safer
medication management.
xxDetailed information on the Medicaid DUR program, along with reports the States submit annually on the operation of their
programs, can be found at: http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Benefits/Prescription-
Drugs/Drug-Utilization-Review.html.

SECTION
Anticoagulants
5
Magnitude of the Problem
Anticoagulants are the mainstay of therapy for the acute and long-term prevention and treatment of
numerous types of thromboembolic disorders. The prevention of thromboembolic stroke among
patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the primary indications for oral anticoagulation
therapy. The current U.S. prevalence estimate of AF is approximately 2.6 million persons, and it is
predicted to reach 12 million persons by the year 2050 [1]. In addition, anticoagulants are indicated in,
and are increasingly prescribed for the prevention and treatment of, venous thromboembolism (VTE),
including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). It is estimated that more than
900,000 incident or recurrent, fatal and nonfatal VTE events occur in the United States annually [2].
Total annual direct medical costs and indirect costs (including lost earnings from premature mortality) of
VTE are estimated to be $13 to $27 billion (USD 2011) [3]. Vitamin K antagonists (e.g., warfarin),
unfractionated heparin (UFH, low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH, e.g., enoxaparin and dalteparin]),
direct thrombin inhibitors (e.g., argatroban and dabigatran), and factor Xa inhibitors (e.g., apixaban,
fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban) are critical for the treatment and prevention of these disorders [4].
More than 30 million prescriptions for warfarin are written annually [5], more than two-thirds of
Medicare beneficiaries with AF use warfarin [6], and total direct expenditures on warfarin have been
estimated to be around $158 million per quarter (USD 2010) [7]. Prescriptions of new oral
anticoagulants (NOACs), such as dabigatran and rivaroxaban, are also increasing [7].
Bleeding is the primary ADE of concern associated with the use of anticoagulants [4, 5, 8, 9]. Thus,
anticoagulation requires a careful balance between thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks and is easily
influenced by a multitude of factors, such as patient age, co-morbidities, concomitant medications, and
for warfarin especially, diet and pharmacogenetics. Bleeding rates associated with anticoagulants vary
depending on the types of anticoagulant agents, dosing strategies, prophylactic versus therapeutic
indications, durations of therapy, and patient populations. For warfarin, bleeding frequency has been
estimated to be 15 percent to 20 percent per year, and life-threatening or fatal bleeding rates are

Section 5 | Anticoagulants
estimated at 1 percent to 3 percent per year [10]. Bleeding frequency while on warfarin is
approximately five times that observed without warfarin therapy [11]. In recent clinical trials, NOACs
(e.g., dabigatran and rivaroxaban) were associated with statistically significant lower rates of intracranial
bleeding but higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding relative to warfarin [12, 13, 14, 15]. Among
patients with AF, studies indicate that NOACs were associated with statistically significant reductions in
hemorrhagic strokes relative to warfarin [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. In most studies to date of patients with
VTE or PE, NOACs were associated with statistically significant reductions in major or clinically relevant
bleeding, as compared with warfarin [17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. The bleeding risks associated with the use of
NOACs outside of clinical trials and in populations who are especially vulnerable to ADEs (e.g., elderly
patients and patients with renal impairment) require further postmarketing experience [22]. Data on
the economic impact of anticoagulant-related harms are scarce. Among older adults (age 65 years), a
population shown to be especially vulnerable to ADEs, the annual cost of hospitalizations for warfarin-
related bleeding has been estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars [9, 23].
Among hospitalized patients (i.e., inpatient settings), significant challenges to optimal anticoagulation
management persist despite advancements in health care delivery models and health information
technology (health IT) resources (e.g., computerized physician order entry, electronic medication
administration records, clinical decision support) [24, 25, 26, 27]. These challenges may result from
clinicians having to rely on a wide range of anticoagulants with differing pharmacodynamic and
pharmacokinetic profiles, the acuity and complexity of hospitalized patient populations, unique
inpatient dosing considerations (e.g., rapidly changing renal function and extremes of weight), dietary
inconsistency (e.g., changing or reduced dietary intake while hospitalized), the need for interruption of
anticoagulation in preparation for invasive procedures, and transitions between parenterally and orally
administered agents (e.g., in preparation for surgery or at time of hospital discharge). Care transitions
from one unit to another (e.g., intensive care to step-down unit) and at discharge from the hospital to
postacute or ambulatory care settings can also pose significant challenges to optimal anticoagulant
management [28, 29].
Among nonhospitalized patients (i.e., outpatient settings), requirements for frequent monitoring, dose
adjustments, and regular providerpatient contact can often render management of warfarinthe most
commonly utilized oral anticoagulant in the outpatient setting [30]labor-intensive and complex [31,
32]. However, patient interaction with coordinated anticoagulation management services [29, 33] and
exposure to anticoagulant education [34] have been correlated with positive outcomes, as measured by

reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations and associated health care costs for
thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events [35, 36, 37].
The introduction of NOACs to the market may attenuate some of the health care system burdens
associated with outpatient warfarin management. The cost-effectiveness and postmarketing safety of
these agents relative to warfarin is currently being evaluated [38, 39, 40]. Nevertheless, outpatient
coordinated anticoagulation management services will likely continue to be heavily relied on to manage
patient populations for whom NOACs are not prescribed. In addition, several of the critical elements of
warfarin patient education will continue to be relevant for the NOACs, including such elements as
patient recognition and understanding of signs and symptoms of thromboembolism/bleeding,
appropriate dosing/administration instructions, and potential for drug-drug and drug-herbal
interactions. Other important areas in which coordinated outpatient anticoagulation management may
play a role for the NOACs are discussed below under the subheading Evidence-Based Prevention
Tools.
Anticoagulants have been consistently identified as the most common causes of ADEs
across health care settings.
Inpatient Settings
In a nationally representative sample of inpatient stays, anticoagulants caused an estimated 10 percent
of drug-related adverse outcomes [41], and in a nationally representative sample of hospitalized
Medicare beneficiaries, anticoagulants comprised one-third of identified ADEs (12 of 40 events) [42].
Data from inpatient settings suggest that anticoagulant ADEs most commonly result from medication
errors, a large proportion are amenable to prevention, and they incur significant costs to the health care
system, largely because of increased nursing and pharmacy costs [25, 27, 43, 44].
Outpatient Settings
On the basis of national public health surveillance data, anticoagulants have been shown to be among
the most frequently implicated drug classes in ADEs that contribute to emergency department visits and
hospital admissions [9, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. Among older adults, warfarin was implicated in an
estimated 17 percent of emergency department visits and 33 percent of emergent hospitalizations for
ADEs annually [9, 50]. An estimated two-thirds of all warfarin-related emergent hospitalizations were
because of unintentional overdose, as indicated by warfarin overdose in the clinician diagnosis, or
supratherapeutic effects, as indicated by such factors as prolonged international normalized ratio (INR)

and/or hemorrhagic events [9]. Data for ADEs as causes of hospital readmissions are scarce; however,
the few studies that are available also have found anticoagulant-related harms to be among the most
common reasons for ADE-related readmissions [48, 51].
Long-Term Care (LTC) Settings

Data for anticoagulant-related harms in institutional LTC settings are more limited than for inpatient and
other outpatient settings but also suggest that anticoagulant ADEs are common causes of preventable
harms [52, 53]. As an example, it is estimated that there may be as many as 34,000 fatal, life-
threatening, or serious warfarin-related ADEs per year in nursing home settingsmany of which may be
preventable [54]. In one cohort of nursing home residents, an estimated 29 percent of warfarin-related
ADEs and 57 percent of serious, life-threatening, or fatal warfarin-related ADEs were deemed to be
preventable [55]. In a retrospective cohort study within five VA nursing homes, even though INR-
monitoring frequency was judged to be adequate, INRs were in therapeutic range for only 55 percent of
the person-days, with a greater portion of person-time spent in the subtherapeutic (35 percent)
compared with supratherapeutic range (11 percent) [56]. A similar study in LTC facilities found that
residents spent only half of the time in therapeutic range, 36 percent of the time below the therapeutic
range, and 13 percent of the time above therapeutic range [57].
Anticoagulation therapy is underutilized in the patient populations for whom it is most

beneficial. Future public health initiatives will need to foster a comprehensive
approach that addresses both anticoagulant effectiveness and safety.
AF, the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice [58], is associated with a fourfold to
fivefold increased risk of ischemic stroke. As an example of the importance of oral anticoagulation
therapy in this patient population, warfarin has been shown to reduce the relative risk of ischemic
stroke by approximately 64 percent and of death by approximately 25 percent [58]. The effectiveness of
oral anticoagulation therapy for the prevention or treatment of VTE varies with indication;
anticoagulation prophylaxis is associated with a 59 percent reduction in fatal pulmonary embolisms
(PEs) and a 53 percent reduction in symptomatic DVT among acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients
[59]. In medical patients at highest risk, anticoagulation reduces the risk of PE by approximately 40
percent to 60percent [60]. Warfarin reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE by approximately 80 percent
among patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty or hip fracture surgery [60].
However, despite this well-established role for anticoagulation in prevention and treatment of
thromboembolism, U.S. studies have consistently reported underuse of anticoagulants for these

indications [61, 62]. Underuse of anticoagulation when indicated can contribute to higher health care
costs associated with strokes and VTE that otherwise would be prevented by effective anticoagulation
therapy [63, 64]. In two studies involving a large, commercially insured patient population, less than
one-half of high-risk stroke patients with AF received warfarin and more than three-quarters of high-risk
VTE patients were considered noncompliant with warfarin therapy [65, 66]. A study conducted in a
convenience sample of 21 community-based LTC facilities in a single State found that only 55 percent of
ideal candidates for warfarin therapy were receiving it [57].
The factors underlying underuse of anticoagulants have not been explored extensively, but may include
clinician and patient concerns regarding supratherapeutic INRs/bleeding risks [67] and lack of patient
understanding of the importance of and indications for anticoagulation [68, 69]. Patients residing in
rural or remote regions may especially be at increased risk of both undertreatment with anticoagulants
and anticoagulant ADEs because of challenges in access to health care providers and anticoagulation
management services. For example, studies have found that, despite having similar high-risk profiles,
elderly, rural patients with chronic AF receive warfarin less frequently than urban patients [61, 70].
Providers caring for rural-dwelling patients may be reluctant to prescribe warfarin because of difficulties
in followup and monitoring, which may contribute to underuse of anticoagulants in this population [61].
A better understanding of the extent of, and contributors to, undertreatment with anticoagulants is
needed for those residing in rural areas and other patient populations who may be especially vulnerable
to ADEs on the basis of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, low health
literacy, physical disability, and physical distance from providers.
The ADE Action Plan is intended to address harms associated with exposure to anticoagulants; it does
not address adverse events resulting from lack of treatment or undertreatment with anticoagulants (i.e.,
thromboembolic events, such as stroke or VTE). However, it is fully acknowledged that, in order to
optimize health system and provider efforts in the area of anticoagulation management, future public
health strategies will be needed to address both the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation.
Addressing the effectiveness of anticoagulation management requires a far more detailed approach
than can be afforded by the ADE Action Plan alone. This includes considerations of effectiveness as it
varies across indications for anticoagulation therapy (e.g., prophylactic vs. treatment indications) and
consideration of the varying health system-, provider-, and patient-related factors that contribute to
anticoagulant undertreatment. Differences in the ways providers may approach prescribing various
anticoagulants (e.g., warfarin vs. NOACs) and a better understanding of the reasons underlying

suboptimal adherence by patients (e.g., differences in patient concerns regarding risk of stroke vs.
perceived bleeding risks with anticoagulation) should also be considered. Surveillance resources that
measure and track thromboembolic outcomes (e.g., stroke) and underlying indications (e.g., AF) need to
be identified and explored for their strengths and limitations. Likewise, it will also be necessary to
review evidence-based prevention strategies that specifically target use of anticoagulants in patients for
whom they are most beneficial and that promote patient compliance/adherence. Although the ADE
Action Plan does not directly address considerations that are specific to underuse of anticoagulants, it is
hoped that aiming collective patient safety initiatives at better prevention of anticoagulant-related
harms will foster health system-, provider-, and patient-level changes that will facilitate more
confidence in anticoagulant therapy in the patient populations for whom it stands to be most beneficial.
Surveillance
Optimal use of anticoagulants requires accurate, timely, and adequately

representative information on the real-world risks of bleeding complications.
Clinical trials evaluating the safety profile of various anticoagulants often exclude populations at highest
risk of ADEs (e.g., older adults and patients with renal insufficiency). In addition, clinical trials are
insufficiently powered to detect ADEs, have limited ability to examine drug-drug or drug-disease
interactions that often contribute to ADEs in real-world settings, and include care processes that are
not part of routine clinical practice [71]. For these reasons, postmarketing surveillance, like that
currently conducted through various Federal systems, is crucial for estimating and characterizing the
burden of anticoagulant-related harms in clinical practice or real-world settings.
Some Federal surveillance systems are currently capable of assessing the national scope of
anticoagulant ADE burden. In addition, Federal Agencies involved in direct patient care (e.g., IHS, VHA)
have the capacity to capture regional- and facility-level information on the quality of anticoagulant
management. Table 3 provides a summary of anticoagulant ADE-related metrics currently collected by
Federal surveillance systems.

Table 3. Summary of Metrics Related to Anticoagulant ADEs Collected by Federal Surveillance Systems
Data Anticoagulation Management Anticoagulation Management

Geographic Collection or ADE Metrics: or ADE Metrics:
Scope Methods Inpatient Settings Outpatient Settings
National ADE Administrative AHRQ (NIS)* FDA (Sentinel Initiative, Mini-Sentinel):***
Incidence claims and/or Inpatient stays with ICD-9- ED visits, hospitalizations for bleeding
EHR data CM codes (964.2)* and E- events and ADE signals (e.g., MI on
codes (E934.2)* dabigatran)
National ADE Medical AHRQ (MPSMS): ** CDC (NEISS-CADES):
Incidence record review Inpatient stays with ED visits, emergent hospitalizations for
(+/-Rates) combination of laboratory laboratory abnormalities (e.g., elevated
triggers and signs/symptoms INR), bleeding events, medication errors,
in the medical record and other ADEs relevant to anticoagulants
associated with UFH, diagnosed by treating clinician and
LMWHs, or warfarin documented in medical record narrative
National-, Voluntary DOD (Patient Safety Reporting DOD (Patient Safety Reporting System)
Regional-, and reporting System) Any clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
Facility-Level Any clinician-diagnosed or ADEs
Spontaneous patient-reported ADEs FDA (FAERS):
Reports FDA (FAERS): Any clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
Any clinician-diagnosed or ADEs
patient-reported ADEs VA (VA ADERS):
VA (VA ADERS): Any clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
Any clinician-diagnosed or ADEs
patient-reported ADEs
Regional-, Administrative VA: DOD (Pharmacovigilance Defense Application
Facility-Level claims and/or Anticoagulation process System):
ADE Incidence EHR data measures (e.g., out-of-range Outpatient clinic visits, ED visits,
Quality INR values, vitamin K orders, hospitalizations using relevant ICD-9-CM
Improvement transfusions), ADEs (e.g., codes and/or CPT codes
bleeding events) VA (VA Integrated Databases):
Outpatient clinic visits, ED visits,
hospitalizations using relevant ICD-9-CM
codes and/or CPT codes for bleeding
events, other relevant ADEs, and ADE
signals (e.g., MI on dabigatran)
BOP, IHS, VA:
Anticoagulation process measures (e.g.,
TTR, out-of-range INR values, vitamin K
orders, INR monitoring frequency)
*ICD-9-CM 964.2 refers to Poisoning by anticoagulants and E934.2 refers to External Causes of Injury and Poisoning,
Anticoagulants.
**In 2015, the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (MPSMS) will be replaced by the Quality and Safety Review System
(QSRS). QSRS will aim to facilitate measurement of ADEs associated with additional types of anticoagulants.
***Currently, FDA Sentinel Initiative covers over 125 million lives; however, these do not constitute a nationally representative
sample.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; E-code= external cause of injury code; ED =
emergency department; EHR = electronic health record; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,
Clinical Modification; INR = international normalized ratio; LMWH = low-molecular-weight heparin; MI = myocardial infarction;
NIS = nationwide inpatient sample; TTR = time in therapeutic range; UFH = unfractionated heparin

Future Federal strategies will have to address challenges in capturing anticoagulant

ADEs on the basis of surveillance data.
Although current Federal surveillance systems are capable of capturing an array of important outcomes
reflective of anticoagulant ADEs, as well as process measures related to anticoagulant management,
several challenges related to optimal surveillance of anticoagulant-related harms remain. Specifically,
future Federal surveillance strategies will have to address challenges in capturing anticoagulant ADEs on
the basis of validated diagnostic codes, using consistent definitions of bleeding, collecting data on ADEs
occurring in settings that have otherwise been poorly studied (e.g., care transitions, nursing homes,
home care), and monitoring ADEs associated with NOACs (for which well-established process measures
are currently lacking). Opportunities to advance anticoagulant ADE surveillance strategies are
summarized in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Federal Interagency Workgroup Recommendations for Actions That Can Potentially Advance
Surveillance Strategies for Anticoagulant ADEs
Actions That Can Potentially Advance Surveillance

Strategies for Anticoagulant ADEs
Address gaps in use of standard surveillance definitions for anticoagulant-related bleeding
events in postmarketing and/or epidemiologic analyses.
Better distinguish between major and minor anticoagulant-related bleeding events.
Minimize opportunities for bias or misclassification when characterizing bleeding events on
the basis of retrospective medical review.
Assess the accuracy of diagnostic and procedural coding for capturing anticoagulant-related
bleeding events.
Assess specificity, sensitivity, PPV, and NPV of ICD and CPT codes for capturing
anticoagulant-related bleeding events.
Improve availability of and access to integrated EHR data with linked pharmacy (medication
exposure), laboratory, and outcomes (e.g., admission/discharge) data at national and local
levels.
Improve surveillance of anticoagulant ADEs resulting during care transitions, as well as those
occurring in postacute care settings (e.g., nursing homes, home care) and among vulnerable
patient populations (e.g., rural/remote-dwelling, low income, disabled patient populations).
Address challenges in capturing anticoagulant ADEs among patients who seek care outside of
integrated health care systems.
Identify appropriate ADE surveillance metrics for NOACs and a long-term plan for ongoing
monitoring of NOAC safety relative to warfarin in real world (nonclinical trial) settings.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; EHR = electronic health record; ICD =
International Classification of Diseases; NOAC = new oral anticoagulant; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive
predictive value

Monitoring anticoagulant ADEs on the basis of administrative claims data or population-based

surveillance is challenging. First, ICD-9-CM codes, including External Causes of Injury codes (E-codes),
have been commonly relied on to assess anticoagulant-related bleeding risks in
postmarketing and epidemiologic studies [72, 73, 74]; however, very few studies have validated the
accuracy of diagnostic and procedural codes in identifying the true frequency of anticoagulant-related
bleeding events [75, 76, 77]. Second, the use of E-codes to capture anticoagulation-related bleeding is
highly problematic because of the poor sensitivity of these types of codes for capturing ADEs, including
anticoagulant ADEs [76]. Third, although definitions of major and minor bleeding in relation to
anticoagulants have been universally agreed on for some time [78], these definitions are not
consistently applied across postmarketing and epidemiologic studies, rendering comparisons of studies
somewhat challenging [78]. Fourth, NOACs present a unique challenge to anticoagulant ADE
surveillance in that they currently lack well-established process measures (e.g., laboratory coagulation
markers) to facilitate adequate monitoring of harms [22]. Few surveillance systems are able to provide
robust information regarding anticoagulant ADEs occurring as a result of care transitions issues [79], or
occurring in nursing home or home care settings, and there are insufficient data on anticoagulant ADEs
resulting in hospital readmissions. Integrated health care data that allow linking of exposure (e.g.,
anticoagulant prescription) and outcome variables (e.g., subsequent emergency department visit or
hospitalization for bleeding event) across care settings will be important for furthering the
understanding of the burden and impact of anticoagulant ADEs across care transitions, as well as for
implementing and assessing prevention efforts across the patient care spectrum [80].
Evidence-Based Prevention Tools
Evidence-based guidelines and prevention strategies/tools that aim to carefully balance the
thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risks associated with anticoagulants are available [4]. However, given
the complex and rapidly evolving nature of the field of antithrombotic management, opportunities for
advancement in the area of prevention remain. Although it is acknowledged that there is a subset of
especially high-risk anticoagulated patients for whom bleeding cannot be prevented despite optimal
care, there remains a large proportion of anticoagulant ADEs that may be amenable to prevention,
particularly in outpatient settings [9, 81]. A summary of existing Federal prevention strategies/tools that
address safe and effective management of anticoagulation therapy are summarized in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Federal Assets Related to Safe Management of Anticoagulation Therapy, as Identified by the
National Quality Strategy Priorities
Resources for Safer CareHealth Care Provider Knowledge
BOP:
Anticoagulation Protocol (for warfarin, heparin, NOACs)Includes dosing algorithms, guidelines to manage
high INR values, guidelines to manage anticoagulation therapy in patients requiring invasive procedures, and
bridge therapy protocols
IHS:
National Anticoagulation Training Program3-day certificate training program providing specialized training
in anticoagulation and disease management; other Federal partners (BOP, DOD, VA) also participate
VA:
Educational opportunities for health care providers include anticoagulation-related cases for grand rounds and
teaching cases for medical, nursing, and pharmacy staff; Web-based education courses (e.g., self-learning
modules, live broadcasts on anticoagulation management, and CE programs on anticoagulation safety)
Resources for Patient and Family Engagement
ACL:
Community organizations offer programs that have been or are currently supported, in part, by Federal funds,
such as
1. Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program6-week program to help participants better
manage their medications, including information about anticoagulants
2. HomeMedsSM Medication Management SystemMultidisciplinary collaborative providing patient
counseling, reassessment, and adjustment of medication regimens for older adults in various nonacute
health care settings (e.g., home care)
AHRQ:
Patient education information sheet (Blood Thinner Pills: Your Guide to Using Them Safely) & video
FDA:
Medication guides (e.g., available for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin)
Resources for Communication and Coordination of Care
AHRQ:
Project REDIncludes a number of medication-related strategies (e.g., active medication reconciliation,
medication teaching for patients and caregivers, development of medication list for patients and their health
care providers)
BOP, IHS:
Anticoagulation Management Electronic FlowsheetIntegrates laboratory and pharmacy data in one
location, in an easily accessible format, in close to real time
VA:
Traveling Veterans DirectoryAddresses challenges associated with care coordination for Veterans seeking
care at different VA medical facilities when traveling
Anticoagulation Management ToolDesigned to simplify the complex, time-consuming processes required to
manage outpatient anticoagulant medications and allows health care providers to enter outside laboratory
results, review laboratory data, record activities on an anticoagulation flowsheet; creates a loss to followup
list; calculates TTR; and develops complications reports
Electronic consults and templatesCoordinates care with outpatient anticoagulation clinics on discharge

Figure 8. Federal Assets Related to Safe Management of Anticoagulation Therapy, as Identified by the
National Quality Strategy Priorities (continued)
Resources for Science-driven Prevention and Treatment
BOP, DOD, IHS, VA:
Systematic and coordinated anticoagulation management models of care (e.g., anticoagulation clinics, support
for warfarin PST/PSM)
VA:
Medication Use Evaluation Tracker (MUET)Available for dabigatran and rivaroxaban to identify and
intervene on inappropriate use and prevent potential ADEs
Electronic Clinical Decision Support templatesFor ordering and monitoring NOACs
Resources to Promote Best Practices within Communities
VA:
- Shared Resource CenterLists strong clinical practices, tools, and patient education materials related to
anticoagulation management
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; INR = international normalized ratio; NOAC = new oral anticoagulant; PSM = patient
self-Monitoring; PST = patient self-testing; TTR = time in therapeutic range
Inpatient Settings
Compared with other medications, anticoagulants are more likely to cause harm to hospitalized patients
because of a variety of factors, including complex dosing, the need for frequent monitoring, and
transitions between parenterally and orally administered agents (e.g., in preparation for surgery or at
time of hospital discharge). Goals and strategies for improving anticoagulation management in inpatient
settings have been identified. For example, The Joint Commission (TJC) has identified the National
Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) 03.05.01: Reduce the likelihood of patient harm associated with the use of
anticoagulant therapy, which includes the performance element: Evaluate anticoagulation safety
practices, take action to improve practices, and measure the effectiveness of those actions in a time
frame determined by the organization [82]. Care processes that meet these goals may include use of
approved protocols for the initiation and maintenance of anticoagulant therapy; use of programmable
pumps for UFH therapy; implementation of policies that address baseline and ongoing laboratory
monitoring for anticoagulants; and education regarding anticoagulant therapy for prescribers, staff,
patients, and families [82].
The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Pathways for Medication Safety toolkit describes a
comprehensive set of tools to help hospitals adopt a process-driven, systems-based approach to
reduce medication errors and improve patient care [83]. Systematic processes to facilitate inpatient
anticoagulation safety can include such strategies as use of standardized anticoagulation dosing
protocols when appropriate, implementation of technology (e.g., computerized physician order entry,

bar code scanning, programmable infusion pumps, and dose range checking), human or computer-based
alert systems, and multidisciplinary approaches to anticoagulation management [30].
The National Quality Forum (NQF), which works to identify and achieve consensus on national health
care quality measures, has also endorsed a patient safety goal for reducing anticoagulant-related harms
through Safe Practice #29 (Anticoagulation Therapy): Organizations should implement practices to
prevent patient harm due to anticoagulant therapy [84].
Goals such as those set by TJC, NQF, and ISMP suggest that multidisciplinary, coordinated, and
systematic processes will be critical in facilitating reductions in anticoagulant ADEs among hospitalized
patients [29, 82, 83, 84]. Challenges that will need to be addressed to reduce inpatient anticoagulant
ADEs may include
Consideration of the acuity and complexity of the hospitalized patient population and the need
for individualized treatments (relative to outpatient settings)
Lack of a nationally recognized, widely shared, comprehensive set of best practices or standards
focusing specifically on safe use of anticoagulants in hospitalized patient populations
Need for multifaceted interventions to deliver high-quality anticoagulation management
Difficulty in translating clinical guidelines into ready-to-use inpatient health care quality metrics
(i.e., high-quality anticoagulation process measures are not as easily measured in inpatient
relative to outpatient settings)
Opportunities for advancing anticoagulant ADE prevention strategies/tools in inpatient settings, as

identified by the NQS Priorities, are summarized in Figure 9 and discussed further below.

Figure 9. Opportunities for Advancing Anticoagulant ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified by

the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings
Improve provider knowledge of high-quality inpatient

anticoagulation management through provider education
Improve dissemination of/increase accessibility to evidence-
based, high-quality inpatient anticoagulation management
Safer Care strategies/tools
Address gaps in evidence and provider knowledge with regard
to management of NOACs through development of
guidelines/algorithms for safe use (e.g., clinician guidance for
laboratory testing)
Improve EHR tools to enable provider access to real-time,

integrated, linked pharmacy-laboratory data to facilitate
seamless access to pertinent medication and laboratory results,
for example,
Effective Support development of electronic flowsheets that display
trends in daily labs, concomitant medications, reversal
Communication and medications, etc., that are specific to and can support optimal
Coordination of Care anticoagulation management
Support development of clinical decision support tools
specific to anticoagulation management
Better integrate anticoagulation-specific targets into currently
existing care transition models
Promote a multidisciplinary, coordinated, and systematic

approach to inpatient anticoagulation management; for
example,
- Anticoagulation rounds, pharmacist-/nurse-managed
Science-Driven anticoagulation services, Anticoagulation Stewardship.
Prevention and culture of safety in anticoagulation management
Treatment Better address safe use of anticoagulants commonly utilized in
inpatient settings (e.g., heparin) and NOACs in nationally
recognized health care quality/patient safety measures and in
nationally recognized clinical guidelines

Identify and promote adoption of standards that constitute

high-quality anticoagulation management (e.g.,
Promotion of Best Anticoagulation Center of Excellence)
Practices Within Improve dissemination and sharing of strategies and results
Communities from large-scale, quality-improvement learning initiatives
targeting anticoagulant ADE prevention among health care
systems/facilities
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; EHR = electronic health record; NOAC = new oral anticoagulant
Gaps remain in the availability and successful dissemination of evidence-based

strategies for optimizing inpatient anticoagulation management.
Despite widespread recognition of the important contribution of anticoagulants to preventable harm in
inpatient settings, there remain key areas in which use of these agents could be optimized among
hospitalized patients. These include: (1) wider development and dissemination of inpatient-specific
anticoagulation management guidelines, (2) standardization of key coagulation parameters across
laboratory systems, and (3) improvement of anticoagulation-related training and education of inpatient
providers. Although standardized dosing protocols have a role in promoting effective and safe dosing of
certain anticoagulants in inpatient settings [30], these cannot be relied on exclusively, as anticoagulant
management in hospitalized patients requires more extensive considerations than can be afforded by
dosing protocols alone (e.g., emergently holding and restarting anticoagulation and managing bleeding
or reversing anticoagulation). Development and dissemination of institutional guidelines that are
evidence based, evaluated, and revised as necessary, and that leverage multidisciplinary teams may be
important in that regard [28, 29]. Mechanisms that Federal partners could leverage to facilitate
spreading best practices across facilities should also be explored. In addition, to the extent that clinical
laboratory approaches/assays are known to differ among institutions [85], there appears to be an
important need to identify the role that Federal Agencies could play in promoting standardization of key
coagulation parameters across laboratories (e.g., achieving alignment in Activated Partial Thrombosis
Time [aPTT] and antifactor Xa assays across hospital laboratories). Further, the introduction of the
NOACs to the market requires that tools be developed to ensure that clinical laboratories and providers
are equipped and educated regarding appropriate use of laboratory tests with these agents.
Anticoagulation training programs may need to be expanded to better target educational needs of
inpatient anticoagulation providers, who have to take into account unique considerations when
managing anticoagulation for acute or critically ill patients. Below is further discussion of these and
other areas in which Federal Agencies could play an important role in advancing evidence-based
prevention strategies targeted at minimizing anticoagulant ADEs.

Federal Agencies should play a role in advancing health ITbased strategies, including
EHR standards, to further inpatient anticoagulant ADE prevention.
The acuity and complexity of the hospitalized patient population requires that providers have access to
real-time, integrated, linked pharmacylaboratory data to facilitate seamless access to pertinent
medication and laboratory data, and deliver optimal inpatient anticoagulation management [29].
Processes and tools for inpatient anticoagulation management should be integrated with the EHR to
facilitate accurate and efficient communication of clinical and laboratory information pertinent to
inpatient anticoagulation management. Integration of pharmacy order entry systems with laboratory
reporting systems will support the timely review of key laboratory values prior to ordering, dispensing,
or administering anticoagulants. Examples might include tools such as an electronic anticoagulation
management flowsheet that displays trends in such metrics as daily labs, concomitant medications, and
reversal medications specific to anticoagulation management. Regardless of the health IT-based
approaches taken to optimize safety of inpatient anticoagulation delivery, innovative health IT in this
area should be prioritized on the basis of evidence; be tested in collaboration with facilities and
providers; function efficiently in current workflow; and deliver accurate, timely, and clinically relevant
content [86]. Unintended consequences of any new health IT-based approaches to care should also be
taken into consideration prior to implementation.
Federal Agencies that provide direct patient care play an important role in advancing
evidence-based strategies for anticoagulant ADE prevention.
Currently, evidence-based guidelines or tools that address high-quality anticoagulation management in
inpatient settings exist primarily at the level of a single health system or facility. Some organizations,
such as the Anticoagulation Foruma nonprofit, multidisciplinary organization with a goal of improving
quality of care among patients taking antithrombotic medicationsare leading strategies that foster
dissemination of best practices and prevention strategies across health care systems and facilities [87].
However, there remains tremendous opportunity to learn about high-quality facility strategies and tools
from Federal partners that provide direct patient care (e.g., BOP, DOD, HRSA, IHS, and VA). One such
example from the VA National Center for Patient Safety is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Department of Veterans AffairsNational Center for Patient Safety Actions From VA and
Non-VA Facilities To Control Vulnerability From Anticoagulation
System Action
Storage Limit the availability of anticoagulant drugs from floor stock to reduce misadministration.
Ordering Establish weight-based heparin protocols (to improve consistency) with education on
exclusion and inclusion criteria. Closely monitor for success and failures and adjustment of
protocols, as necessary.
Preparation Standardize one size/concentration of IV bags for continuous IV heparin, using an even
number of units per mL [e.g., 50 units per mL] to simplify calculations.
Limit the size of the infusion bag of heparin to reduce risk if free flow or overinfusions occur
(250 mL vs. 500 mL).
Provide heparin in dosage forms that are as close as possible to what is ordered (e.g., 5,000-
unit or 10,000-unit vials for bolus use).
Distribution Use manufacturers premade solutions to reduce compounding and labeling errors.
Administration Establish a food and drug interaction program/policy that addresses enteral feedings and
warfarin administration.
Establish double-check systems to verify correct pump settings and calculations.
Enforce review of order before drug administration.
Include drip charts on the infusion bags to improve the ability to adjust rates without
mathematical errors.
Therapeutic Establish a pharmacy-based inpatient anticoagulation service to improve monitoring,
Management followup, and transitioning to warfarin.
Standardize the monitoring of anticoagulant laboratory work so that clinical changes are
detected early (e.g., hemoglobin, platelets).
Source: U.S. Department of Veterans AffairsNational Center for Patient Safety. (2012, December 13). Anticoagulation
Vulnerability. Available at: http://www.patientsafety.va.gov/professionals/hazards/anticoag.asp .
Federal Agencies should support the dissemination and uptake of evidence-based

strategies for anticoagulant ADE prevention across health care systems and facilities.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation
(CMMI)led Partnership for Patients Initiative serves as an example of the way Federal funding could
enhance private sector efforts to prevent anticoagulant ADEs and facilitate the sharing of evidence-based
prevention strategies across facilities. The goals of the Partnership for Patients Initiative are to make care
safer by reducing hospital-acquired conditions and improve care transitions by decreasing preventable
complications during transitions from one health care setting to another. Since 2011, the Partnership for
Patients initiative has supported large networks of health systems and hospitals (Hospital Engagement
Networks [HENS]) across the country by providing strategies aimed at monitoring safe use of warfarin in
inpatient settings [88, 89]. Example metrics related to inpatient anticoagulation management include
INR >5 per 1,000 patient days

Percentage of patients on warfarin with INR outside threshold

Anticoagulant ADE per 1,000 patient days

Percentage of patients on warfarin receiving warfarin education
Percentage of patients on warfarin who have dose management protocols
Percentage of patients on heparin dosing protocol
Percentage of acute care inpatients on warfarin and/or heparin with evidence of an INR or aPTT
performed during the hospitalization
As of May 2013, there were more than 650 hospitals participating in the Partnership for Patients
Initiative with at least 6 months of data related to inpatient warfarin safety. Mechanisms such as those
employed by the HENs to rapidly disseminate information about successful quality improvement
initiatives may be helpful in spreading best practices across facilities and in preventing adoption of
ineffective strategies.
Federal partners should lead efforts to promote the concept of anticoagulation

stewardship to reduce anticoagulant ADE burden.
Not all health care facilities may be able to rely primarily on health IT-based systems to improve
inpatient anticoagulation management. Consequently, Federal Agencies could support other
multidisciplinary and systematic approaches to anticoagulation management at the health system level.
Such strategies may include nurse- or pharmacist-managed inpatient anticoagulation services and
multidisciplinary anticoagulation rounds that include representatives from medicine, pharmacy,
nursing, and patient safety [90, 91, 92, 93]. In addition, promoting the concept of anticoagulation
stewardship may contribute to promotion of a culture of safety specifically around anticoagulants [94,
95, 96]. The concept of anticoagulation stewardship refers to a multidisciplinary, coordinated, and
systematic approach to care. This is analogous to the successful approach used to improve antibiotic
use in inpatient settings [97]. As with efforts to implement successful and sustainable antibiotic
stewardship programs, anticoagulation stewardship will likely require a commitment from health system
leadership, including support in the form of funding and resources, engagement of a key health care
provider who can champion anticoagulation stewardship efforts, and identification of methods and key
metrics by which to continuously assess outcomes associated with such efforts [97].
Outpatient Settings
Although prescribing of NOACs is increasing, recent data available (2011) suggest that warfarin remains
the most commonly utilized oral anticoagulant in outpatient settings [7, 30]. Nationally recognized
clinical guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommend that health care

providers who manage oral anticoagulation therapy do so in a systematic and coordinated fashion,
incorporating patient education, systematic INR testing, tracking, followup, and good patient
communication of results and dosing decisions [4]. Systematic and coordinated anticoagulation care is
usually defined as a specialized program of patient management that focuses exclusively on managing
oral anticoagulation therapy. This differs from routine medical care, in which a patients own physician
or a variety of physicians provides care without systematic coordination. Features of such services
generally include
A program directed by a single physician whose primary responsibility revolves around oversight
of oral anticoagulation management services
Delivery of care by pharmacists, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants

following a physician-approved protocol
Centralized management of a population of patients with direction provided by different

primary or referring physicians for individual patients [98].
Federal Agencies that provide direct patient care should continue to explore
opportunities to improve uptake of evidence-based, systematic, and coordinated
models of anticoagulation management.
In outpatient hospital departments and in the community, anticoagulation clinics (or Coumadin clinics)
are the settings that most often deliver systematic and coordinated oral anticoagulation management.
In the United States, it is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 such anticoagulation clinics [99].
The VA has long embraced the model of anticoagulation clinic services. In an internal survey conducted
in 2008, more than 95 percent of VA medical facilities were identified as having specialized outpatient
anticoagulation management (including anticoagulation clinics) [100].
There is a large and longstanding body of evidence which indicates that anticoagulation clinic services
are associated with improved anticoagulation management relative to usual medical care, as reflected
by such measures as higher time in therapeutic range (TTR), higher proportion of INR values within
target ranges, and reductions in emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
thromboembolic and hemorrhagic outcomes (including major and fatal bleeding episodes) [37, 101,
102]. Anticoagulation clinics have also demonstrated reductions in health care costs by $800 to $1,600
per patient per year [98, 103]. Research results suggest that health systems could expand the use of
anticoagulation clinics and still save money [104]. Despite this evidence, it is estimated that only 30
percent to 40percent of U.S. patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy are enrolled in such clinics

[99]. Barriers to wider enrollment in anticoagulation clinics range from provider-related factors (e.g.,
fear of loss of autonomy in providing anticoagulation care), patient-related factors (e.g., lack of physical
proximity to such services for rural/remote patient populations), systems-related factors (e.g., concerns
regarding benefits of such services combined with implementation costs, training of staff), and
economic factors (e.g., challenges in payment/coverage for these services).
The barriers that are most likely amenable to being addressed by Federal Agencies are those related to
provider/patient education and economic barriers. Provider education programs such as the National
Anticoagulation Training Program coordinated by IHS (in which BOP, DOD, and VA facilities also
participate) may serve as a model of a systematic approach to deliver education around optimal
anticoagulation management. Publicprivate partnerships with organizations such as the
Anticoagulation Forum, which also is facilitating widely and easily accessible formats for provider
education aimed at improving the quality of anticoagulation care, could also be considered. Potential
opportunities for overcoming economic barriers related to wider uptake of anticoagulation clinic
services are discussed further below under the subheading Incentives and Oversight.
It is important to note that establishing an anticoagulation clinic is only the first step toward reducing
anticoagulation ADEs. Larger challenges remain, including ensuring that patients are referred to, or
utilize, such clinics and optimizing communication among providers caring for the same patient within
and outside these clinics. This is especially true for patients who do not regularly seek care in integrated
health care systems and for rural/remote populations. Barriers to physically accessing clinics may also
exist for older adults, regardless of where they reside, because of such factors as having limited mobility,
being home bound, and having cognitive impairment [105].
Even for those with access to anticoagulation clinic services, challenges surrounding their effective use
remain, including recognition that some patients are at especially high risk for bleeding despite the use of
systematic and coordinated models of anticoagulation management. In addition, some patients may not
be appropriate candidates for such services (e.g., rural/remote patients or patients with poor adherence to
scheduled visits). Finally, use of anticoagulation clinic services may be more effective for the prevention of
thromboembolic events than for prevention of hemorrhagic events [35, 101, 102, 106]. Nevertheless,
studies of anticoagulation clinic services have generally demonstrated positive, substantial impacts on all
fronts of anticoagulation management, including effectiveness, safety, and costs.

Because of some of these limitations of anticoagulation clinic services, alternative models of oral
anticoagulation management have also been adopted [107, 108, 109]. Patient self-testing (PST) of INR
and patient adjustment of their anticoagulant dose (patient self-management, or PSM) have proved to
be effective strategies for improving warfarin effectiveness and safety outcomes [4]. However, current
nationally recognized clinical guidelines recommend that these modalities be limited to patients who are
motivated and can demonstrate competency in self-management strategies, including the self-testing
equipment [4]. As with anticoagulation clinic services, there is a need to facilitate better identification
of patients who are appropriate candidates for PST/PSM models of care and to improve uptake of such
models of care for those patients when appropriate. For patients residing in rural/remote areas,
increasing access to pharmacist services and telephone-based management may be effective strategies
to assist general practitioners in the management of their anticoagulated patients [101, 107, 108].
Although the introduction of NOACs will shift some use away from warfarin, it is likely that coordinated
anticoagulation management services will continue to play an important role in the care of patients
receiving NOACs. Anticoagulation clinic services may evolve into areas such as: identifying appropriate
patient candidates for these new agents, transitioning safely among older and newer agents, monitoring
patients during interruption of therapy (e.g., periprocedural period), ensuring accurate age-dependent
and/or renal function-dependent dose adjustments, helping to define the use and interpretation of
potential laboratory coagulation parameters (e.g., thrombin time and antifactor Xa), providing patient
education (e.g., counseling patients on the importance of adherence because of the shorter half-lives of
the newer agents relative to warfarin and the increased risk of thrombosis during interruptions of
therapy), and general coordination and communication of anticoagulation management issues among a
patients multiple providers [79].
In addition, several of the critical elements of warfarin patient education will continue to be relevant for
the NOACs. These elements include patient recognition and understanding of signs and symptoms of
bleeding/stroke, appropriate dosing/administration instructions, and education on the potential for
drugdrug and drugherbal interactions. As these agents become more widely prescribed, evidence-
based prevention strategies/tools that better address the safe use of NOACs will need to be developed.
Specific areas in which such tools could be targeted are discussed below under the subheading
Research (Unanswered Questions). Opportunities for advancing anticoagulant ADE prevention
strategies/tools in outpatient settings for both warfarin and NOACs, as identified by the NQS Priorities,
are summarized in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Opportunities for Advancing Anticoagulant ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified
by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings
Improve provider knowledge of high-quality outpatient

anticoagulation management through provider education
Improve uptake of evidence-based anticoagulation management
models, including anticoagulation clinic services and warfarin
PST/PSM
Safer Care Address provider concerns around supratherapeutic INRs and
resultant undertreatment
Address gaps in evidence and provider knowledge with regard to
management of NOACs through development of
guidelines/algorithms for safe use (including clinician guidance on
laboratory testing)
Improve incorporation of anticoagulation-specific patient

Patient and Family
management into chronic disease education programs and other
Engagement patient education/health literacy tools
Effective
Better integrate anticoagulation-specific targets into currently
Communication and existing care transition models
Coordination of Care
Address factors that contribute to interfacility variability in

Science-Driven anticoagulation services (including outpatient clinic services)
Better address safe use of NOACs in national health care
Prevention and quality/patient safety measures and nationally recognized clinical
Treatment guidelines
Address gaps in guidelines to identify patients at high risk for
bleeding events (e.g., effectiveness of bleeding scores in relation
to NOACs)
Identify and promote adoption of standards that constitute high-

Promotion of Best quality anticoagulation management (e.g., Anticoagulation
Center of Excellence)
Practices Within Improve dissemination and sharing of strategies and results from
Communities large-scale, quality-improvement learning initiatives targeting
anticoagulant ADE prevention among health care
systems/facilities
Abbreviations: INR = international normalized ratio; NOAC = new oral anticoagulant; PSM = patient self-management; PST =
patient self-testing

Note About Use of Pharmacogenomics-Guided Dosing To Optimize Warfarin Safety

Genetic variations are among the most important determinants of variability in warfarin dosing
requirements [110]. For this reason, pharmacogenomic testing has been a longstanding research area
of interest for optimization of warfarin safety and effectiveness. Dosing algorithms that incorporate
pharmacogenomic considerations (e.g., http://www.warfarindosing.org) have been explored for their
comparative effectiveness, their relative utility among different populations (e.g., Black vs. non-Black
patients), and their impact on such end points as percentage of out-of-range INRs and time in
therapeutic range [111, 112, 113, 114]. However, challenges in integrating pharmacogenomics into
clinical practice have hindered uptake of pharmacogenomics-guided warfarin management [115]. For
example, many medical centers currently do not have warfarin pharmacogenomics testing capabilities
and thus rely on outsourcing to clinical laboratories with long turnaround times for results [116, 117]. In
addition, the cost of pharmacogenetic testing is generally not reimbursed by public and private
insurance plans [116, 117]. Finally, the integration of pharmacogenomics data with clinical decision
support software to guide therapy has not been fully realized [115]. Most recently, data from the
largest pharmacogenomics clinical trial in the U.S. population to date indicate that genotype-guided
warfarin dosing strategies do not affect anticoagulation control, as measured by time in therapeutic
range, time to achievement of first INR, time to stable INR dose, or a composite safety end point of
overcoagulation and undercoagulation (time to any INR of 4, major bleeding episodes, or
thromboembolism) [118]. Given the challenges and limitations associated with pharmacogenomics-
guided warfarin management seen to date, it will be important to focus future public health efforts on
supporting other strategies, such as improving clinicians ability to select the most appropriate
anticoagulant agents for their patients; facilitating patient access to the most appropriate
anticoagulation management modality; bolstering laboratory standards and communication
infrastructure around key coagulation parameters; and supporting improved communication among
laboratories, providers, and patients [110].
Federal Agencies should explore ways to better incorporate effective anticoagulation

ADE prevention strategies in long-term care and care transitions settings.
Long-term Care (LTC) Settings

More needs to be learned about the quality and outcomes associated with anticoagulation therapy in
institutional and noninstitutional LTC settings, including the extent of adoption and application of best
practices for anticoagulant ADE prevention [119]. Barriers to providing high-quality anticoagulation

management in LTC settings have not been thoroughly studied; however, in nursing homes, these may
include provider concerns around supratherapeutic INRs and resultant undertreatment of nursing home
residents, provider fear of loss of professional autonomy in anticoagulation management through use of
dosing nomograms or guidelines, and costs of implementing dosing support tools/resources (e.g.,
nomograms, clinical decision support software). In LTC settings such as nursing homes, there may be a
need to better address risks/benefits associated with point-of-care (POC) INR monitoring versus
venipuncture, dosing practices, rates of achieving appropriate INR and TTR goals, management
strategies for elevated INRs or bleeding events, and overall quality assurance processes associated with
nursing home anticoagulation management. Communication challenges may be one of the foremost
barriers to delivering optimal anticoagulation management in LTC settings. Limited accessibility to EHRs
outside a particular facility and the challenge of transmitting pertinent anticoagulation-related data
elements in an efficient manner to a remote provider that can manage patients anticoagulation may
complicate anticoagulation services in LTC settings. Strategies aimed at improving anticoagulation
safety and providing high-quality anticoagulation management in LTC settings may include
Standardizing anticoagulation management treatment approaches across LTC settings, which

may include facilitating and promoting uptake of currently available guidelines, such as
American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) Antithrombotic Therapy in the Long-Term Care
Setting guidelines [119], or developing LTC-specific anticoagulation management
tools/resources (e.g., EHR-based clinical decision support tools)
Determining reimbursement barriers to POC INR testing, as well as to management/oversight

responsibilities for anticoagulation services
Providing strategies for facility-based active and ongoing surveillance of anticoagulation safety-
related metrics, including ones targeting adequate monitoring transitions to or therapy with NOACs
Improving use of anticoagulant ADE prevention strategies/tools (e.g., dosing nomograms,

clinical decision support, facility policies/guidelines, and preprinted medication orders that
identify patient specific goals/target INR ranges)
Identifying a single anticoagulation provider (e.g., nurse practitioner, consultant pharmacist,

anticoagulation clinic pharmacist) who takes primary responsibility for anticoagulation
management
In home care settings, provision of in-home laboratory services is limited by reimbursement challenges;
this can contribute to inadequate monitoring of postacute patients discharged to these settings.

Changes in reimbursement policy for the use of portable INR devices in home care settings may allow
for more frequent laboratory monitoring to prevent possible complications from anticoagulation
therapy in these settings. Alternatively, adequate staff training in skills required to perform in-home
laboratory draws may improve the validity of laboratory results obtained in these settings. In addition,
significant lag time in reporting laboratory results to laboratory portals for nurses or consultant
pharmacists to review may result in delayed action taken for anticoagulation management. For this
reason, there may be a need for more centralized EHR tools that promote data exchange and facilitate
provider access to real-time, linked pharmacylaboratory data. Finally, limits on prescribing privileges
for nurse practitioners resulting from requirements, such as physician approval of recommendations or
patient encounter prior to physician approval, may limit more efficient and timely anticoagulation
management in home care settings.
Care Transitions
Inpatient and ambulatory anticoagulation management services are an essential component of care
transitions. Although several care transitions models have been developed with the goal of improving
the hospital discharge process and reducing readmission rates, few address issues of care transitions
into, within, and out of the hospital that are specific to anticoagulation management [79].
Anticoagulated patients will likely remain at high risk for ADEs as long as there remain suboptimal
systems for communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, limited ability to access
medication lists and laboratory results for patients who are managed outside of integrated health care
systems, and limits in capability of disparate EHRs to exchange pertinent information.
Strategies targeted at improving care transitions for anticoagulated patients have not been thoroughly
studied. However, in one study, when inpatient pharmacist-directed anticoagulation services were
involved in providing warfarin dosing and monitoring, as well as the coordination of care from inpatient
to outpatient settings, improvements were seen in care transition metrics, including enrollment in
outpatient anticoagulation clinics, documented inpatient-to-outpatient provider contact, documented
inpatient provider-to-anticoagulation clinic communication, and patient followup within 5 days of
hospital discharge [93]. Patient education, a core tenet of care transition models, may also play a key
role in anticoagulant ADE prevention during care transitions. Patient education is a critical component
of safe care transitions [79], and it plays an important role in preventing anticoagulant ADEs. Patient
education about warfarin therapy has been associated with stability of therapy, as measured by TTR
[120] and reductions in hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events [121, 122]. Similarly, reductions in

hospital readmission rates have been demonstrated among patients who received education regarding
therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin and fondaparinux, relative to patients who did not receive
anticoagulant education [123]. However, patient education in and of itself will not likely be sufficient to
mitigate the public health burden of anticoagulant ADEs at the population-based level [124]. For
example, one study found that current warfarin patient information sheets provided at the time of
dispensing often exclude recommended essential or important knowledge items and are at reading
levels that are far above what is recommended for presentation of health information to laypersons
[125, 126]. In addition, the extent and quality of anticoagulation education delivered outside of
anticoagulation clinic services are difficult to assess through existing data sources.
Another core tenet of care transition models is medication reconciliation [79], commonly defined as
the process of reviewing a patients complete medication regimen at the time of admission, transfer,
and discharge, and comparing it with the regimen being considered for the new setting of care [127].
Medication reconciliation as a care transition strategy is important to reduce potential medication
discrepancies. Although studies that have evaluated medication reconciliation have demonstrated a
positive impact on reductions in medication errors or potential ADEs, an impact on reductions in actual
medication-related harms (e.g., as reflected by emergency department visits or hospital readmissions
for ADEs) remains to be seen [128, 129, 130, 131]. It remains unclear whether this is because
medication reconciliation historically has not targeted the highest-risk drugs or patients or because it is
probably insufficient alone, without additional postdischarge monitoring and care coordination (e.g.,
clinic-based support or home visits) [79, 129, 130]. Future studies should explore the incorporation of
anticoagulant-targeted interventions in care transition strategies that include bundled strategies
comprising medication reconciliation (e.g., ensuring appropriate transition from warfarin to NOAC), and
hand-offs (e.g., ensuring that information about goal INR, dose, anticoagulant and/or primary care
provider are communicated) across the continuum of care [79].
From the perspective of HHS, incentive and oversight levers potentially can be applied to advance
anticoagulant ADE prevention through several strategies (Appendix D). Some of the HHS levers include
statutory-based programs such as those noted in CMS programs related to coverage of services (e.g.,
National Coverage Determinations [NCDs]), financial incentive programs (e.g., EHR Incentive Program),
and survey and certification processes (e.g., compliance with Conditions of Participation). Other

financial incentive programs, such as the EHR Incentive Program, can potentially be leveraged to
facilitate and promote integration of anticoagulation management best practice principles into the
overall health IT infrastructure. With that goal in mind, during development of the ADE Action Plan, the
FIW for Anticoagulant ADEs collaborated closely with the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for
Health IT (ONC) to identify health care quality measures specific to anticoagulant safety that were
potentially amenable to incorporation into the EHR-based quality measure strategies; these measures
are currently under exploration by ONC for possible incorporation into Stage 3 EHR Meaningful Use
(MU) requirements. CMS quality reporting programs (e.g., Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting,
Physician Quality Reporting System, and Long-Term Care Hospital Quality Reporting) and quality rating
systems (e.g., Five-Star Quality Rating System for nursing homes) are also critical mechanisms for quality
improvement in health care, most notably through their use of clinical quality measure data for
payment, public reporting, or to assist patients in identifying quality of care within facilities. Other CMS-
related levers may exist within additional programs, such as Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs).
Maintaining and supporting positive impacts brought about by QIOs in their work to reduce ADEs could
serve as an additional strategy for advancing Federal efforts to promote anticoagulation safety. Several
of these programs are described in more detail in Section 4: Incentives & Oversight Opportunities.
Regardless of the specific strategy chosen to advance Federal incentives and oversight policies targeting
anticoagulant ADE prevention, it will be important to develop policies that extend across health care
settings (i.e., traverse inpatient to outpatient settings); reflect joint responsibility of the various provider
groups (e.g., physicians, nurses, and pharmacists); can be shared across facilities/boundaries (e.g.,
through learning networks); can be closely evaluated for unintended consequences, including additional
costs and burden to the health care system; can be continuously re-evaluated for relevance and impact;
and can reflect alignment and consistency across the various Federal Agencies.
Federal partners should consider existing quality measures and initiatives to incentivize
and advance anticoagulant ADE prevention efforts.
The ADE Action Plan recognizes that health care quality measures and quality reporting programs are an
integral part of the HHS strategy for quality improvement in health care. Several Federal Agencies (e.g.,
AHRQ, CMS, VA) have well-established quality initiatives that provide important mechanisms for improving
outcomes and protecting patient safety. Further exploration of these initiatives is warranted to evaluate
the benefits, feasibility, and costs of incorporating new, validated measures of anticoagulant ADEs into
these initiatives. These new measures can potentially complement efforts already underway to gauge and
improve use of anticoagulants. For example, the CMS Hospital Compare program, which captures

information about quality of care from more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals [132, 133], has newly
incorporated important indicators of anticoagulation safety as part of publicly reported hospital quality
measures (e.g., Patients with blood clots who were treated with an intravenous blood thinner, and then
were checked to determine if the blood thinner was putting the patient at an increased risk of bleeding
and Patients with blood clots who were discharged on a blood thinner medicine and received written
instructions about that medicine) [132, 133]. Other federally endorsed patient safety and quality
measures, such as AHRQs Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs), can
potentially be explored for appropriateness and utility of incorporating complications of anticoagulation
therapy [134]. PSIs provide information on potential in-hospital complications and adverse events
following surgeries, procedures, and childbirth; PQIs are a set of measures that that can be used with
hospital inpatient discharge data to identify quality of care for ambulatory care sensitive conditions
[134].
Current National Quality Forum (NQF)endorsed measures of anticoagulation quality care mainly gauge
appropriateness of anticoagulation use [135]. These measures are critical for assessing whether
patients who are candidates for anticoagulation receive this therapy to meet the important goal of
achieving reductions in stroke and other thromboembolic outcomes (e.g., VTE, PE), especially in light of
data indicating underutilization of anticoagulation in patients for whom it is indicated [61, 62, 136].
However, there remains a need for measure concepts that track centrally important markers of
anticoagulant safety (e.g., bleeding). The few currently available NQF-endorsed measures that address
anticoagulant safety are mainly focused on surrogate markers of safe warfarin use (e.g., NQF #0555,
NQF #0556). It may be necessary to explore new measure that: (1) reflect more updated approaches to
optimizing anticoagulation management (e.g., percentage of patients with warfarin time in therapeutic
range), (2) include metrics for safe use of agents other than warfarin (i.e., NOACs), (3) address patient
populations who are especially vulnerable to ADEs (e.g., elderly) or are based in high-risk settings where
such measure concepts do not currently exist (e.g., LTCs, nursing homes, home), and (4) assess clinical
outcomes rather than surrogate indicators of anticoagulation safety (e.g., admissions or readmissions
for anticoagulant-related bleeding rather than the number of times a laboratory value is obtained). This
last component is important in that Federal quality initiatives have already moved toward development
of measure concepts focused on clinical outcomes. Outcome-based measures will also be especially
important for assessing safe use of NOACs, for which laboratory metrics of effectiveness and safety
either are currently not available or are very limited [22]. It is important to recognize, however, that
developing reliable outcome-based measures of anticoagulant safety can be challenging and will need to

be approached after adequate exploration of available data sources, since inadequate data sources or
data quality can affect measure validity and feasibility. These challenges are caused in part by
complexities inherent in collecting or accessing administrative claims, and chart-extracted or EHR data
sources to reliably identify anticoagulant ADEs.
Regardless of which measures are chosen, any new metrics related to anticoagulant ADE prevention will
need to reflect updated standards of care, be thoroughly tested and validated, be feasible and useful for
reporting, and achieve adequate balance between newer and older anticoagulant agents, as well as
between effectiveness (e.g., stroke) and safety (e.g., bleeding) outcomes. Both Federal partners and the
non-Federal sector will also have an important role to play in facilitating ease and efficiency of reporting of
any new anticoagulation ADE prevention measures by health care systems and providers. Moving
forward, it will also be important for Federal partners to initiate discussions and collaborate with non-
Federal organizations that also play a role in setting nationally recognized patient safety goals, standards,
and quality measures (e.g., The Joint Commission, National Committee for Quality Assurance, Pharmacy
Quality Alliance, and Institute for Safe Medication Practices). Such collaborations could facilitate further
alignment and advancement of anticoagulation safety goals across Federal and non-Federal programs.
Opportunities to advance the prevention of anticoagulant ADEs through incentives and oversight-based
strategies are summarized in Figure 11.
Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for Anticoagulant ADE Prevention
Actions That Can Potentially Advance Health Care Policy

Strategies for Preventing Anticoagulant ADEs
Inpatient Settings
Expand national health care quality reporting measures to include concepts related to
multidisciplinary, systematic, and coordinated models of care (e.g., Anticoagulation Stewardship).
Outpatient Settings
Expand national health care quality reporting measure sets to include measures specific to
anticoagulant safety/anticoagulant ADE prevention.
Address payment/coverage barriers to uptake of evidence-based, high-quality ADE prevention
strategies (e.g., anticoagulation clinics, warfarin PST/PSM).
Long-Term Care/Home Care
Nursing homes: Address barriers to more integrated anticoagulation management (e.g., leveraging
consultant pharmacist services to deliver anticoagulation management).
Home care: Address challenges in POC monitoring and barriers to more seamless communication of
anticoagulation laboratory-testing results to anticoagulation management providers.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; POC = point of care; PSM = patient self-management; PST = patient self-testing

Currently, there are few existing National Quality Forumendorsed measures specific to
anticoagulation safety.
To date, very few measures that are specific to anticoagulation safety have been endorsed by the
National Quality Forum (NQF) (Table 5) [135]. Achievement of NQF endorsement is important, as
certain CMS statutorily based programs require endorsement of proposed measures prior to adoption
as clinical quality measures for Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, stakeholders such as hospitals and
health insurance providers often adopt NQF-endorsed measures to improve quality of care for their
patients and beneficiaries.
Table 5. National Quality Forum (NQF)-Endorsed Health Care Quality Measures Specific to
Anticoagulation Safety*
Measure ID Measure Measure Description Steward

NQF 0374 VTE Patients Receiving UFH Number of patients diagnosed with confirmed The Joint
with Dosages/Platelet VTE who received intravenous UFH therapy Commission
Count Monitoring by with dosages and platelet counts monitored
Protocol (or Nomogram) using defined parameters such as a nomogram
or protocol
NQF 0375 VTE Discharge Instructions Number of patients diagnosed with confirmed The Joint
VTE that are discharged to home, to home with Commission
home health or home hospice on warfarin with
written discharge instructions that address all
four criteria: compliance issues, dietary advice,
followup monitoring, and information about
the potential for adverse drug
reactions/interactions
NQF 0555 Lack of Monthly INR Average percentage of monthly intervals in CMS
Monitoring for Individuals which individuals with claims for warfarin do
on Warfarin not receive an INR test during the
measurement period
NQF 0556 INR for Individuals Taking Percentage of episodes with an INR test CMS
Warfarin and Interacting performed 3 to 7 days after a newly started
Anti-Infective Medications interacting anti-infective medication for Part D
individuals receiving warfarin
NQF 0586 Warfarin PT/INR Test Percentage of patients taking warfarin during Resolution
the measurement year who had at least one Health, Inc.
PT/INR test within 30 days after the first
warfarin prescription in the measurement year
NQF 0612 The percentage of patients Percentage of patients taking warfarin who had Active Health
taking warfarin who had PT/INR monitoring Management
PT/INR monitoring
*Note: Measures summarized in this table are specific to ensuring the safe use of anticoagulants (e.g., through patient
education or laboratory monitoring). Measures related to ensuring that anticoagulants are prescribed for certain indications
(e.g., receipt of VTE prophylaxis, anticoagulation therapy for AF at discharge) are not shown here.
Abbreviations: INR = international normalized ratio; PT = prothrombin time; UFH = unfractionated heparin;
VTE = venous thromboembolism

Federal partners should address economic barriers to uptake of evidence-based

anticoagulation ADE prevention strategies.
Improved and consistent utilization of evidence-based anticoagulation strategies (e.g., anticoagulation
clinics, warfarin PST/PSM) will require considerations related to restructuring payment or coverage.
Current economic barriers can be considered as falling into three broad categories: (1) limits on direct
payment to nonphysician providers (i.e., pharmacists), who are the primary providers currently
delivering care in anticoagulation clinics; (2) limits on physician billing for anticoagulation management
services; and (3) challenges in the reimbursement structure for PST/PSM-based strategies.
Limits on direct payment to nonphysician providers (i.e., pharmacists) pose a serious challenge to wider
provision of anticoagulation clinic services. Currently under Medicare Part B, pharmacists are
considered non-advanced practice staff whose services are charged on the physicians bill for
provision of supporting services in physicians offices. Pharmacists, in collaboration with physicians,
can only report medically necessary evaluation and management (E/M) services associated with
managing anticoagulation therapy using incident-to Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code
99211, when appropriate [137, 138]. CPT code 99211 is defined as an office or other outpatient visit
service rendered for the evaluation and management of an established patient, whose nature of
presenting problem is minimal, where at least 5 minutes of time is spent performing/supervising such
services, and which does not require the presence of a physician. This code can be limiting in that,
despite providing a comprehensive patient evaluation and obtaining the clinical specimen (phlebotomy
or finger stick), there may be limitations on the use of the billing code in the absence of such factors as
adjustment of drug dosage, new medical co-morbidities, or dietary change [137]. Overcoming barriers
related to achieving health care provider status for pharmacists in order to facilitate improved
integration of anticoagulation clinic services in the delivery of day-to-day patient care will be critical in
strategies aimed at anticoagulant ADE prevention. Nevertheless, this specific barrier is beyond the
scope of the ADE Action Plan and is better addressed by other key organizations, such as the American
Pharmacists Association (APhA). The APhA has identified increasing the value recognition and
compensation for pharmacists clinical services as one of its top strategic priorities [139]. Other groups
are also actively working to advance the recognition of pharmacists as health care providers [140].
There are high overhead costs associated with maintaining anticoagulation clinic services; this also
serves as a barrier to more widespread adoption of anticoagulation clinic services. Limits on physician
billing for these services also may be a barrier to more widespread adoption. Overhead costs impede

individual or small groups of physician providers (who are not part of an integrated health care system
and cannot realize the direct cost savings through reductions in emergency department visits or
hospitalizations) from initiating and maintaining coordinated anticoagulation clinic services. Currently,
providers are limited to seeking reimbursement for PT/INR tests performed, and anticoagulation
management services, including those provided via telephone calls (e.g., to report results of INR tests,
provide patient education, explain changes in medication dosages), are not directly reimbursable. In the
future, it may be necessary to explore whether the currently existing provider payment structure for
outpatient anticoagulation-related visits fully captures the minimum services that are medically
necessary to ensure optimal anticoagulation management, including all the processes of care required
to minimize or prevent anticoagulant ADEs.
Improving access to point-of-care (POC) device testing in patients for whom warfarin PST/PSM is
appropriate will also be important in overcoming current barriers to utilization of these particular
anticoagulation management strategies [109, 141]. Several areas are amenable to exploration. These
include: reevaluation of the adequacy of reimbursement rates for POC testing; minimizing delays in
providers being able to initiate PST/PSM for patients; clearly identifying patient populations for whom
PST/PSM are the preferred management modalities (e.g., frail elderly and those residing in LTC facilities
who may have physical barriers to accessing anticoagulation clinic services), and removing penalties or
restrictions to their ability to access such care; resolving discordance in Medicaid reimbursement rates
relative to Medicare rates for PST/PSM; and exploring the role of reimbursement for telephone-based
management of patients using PST [109].
Moving forward, it will be important to address the aforementioned economic barriers so as to facilitate
advancement of evidence-based ADE prevention strategies for warfarin and NOACs.
Health Information Technology (Health IT)
Limitations in the current health information exchange infrastructure, including lack of

interoperability, serve as barriers to anticoagulant ADE prevention efforts.
Electronic exchange of health information, such as laboratory results and care (e.g., discharge)
summaries, has been identified as a critical component of delivering optimal patient care; however,
several barriers remain in health information exchange infrastructure [142]. For anticoagulation
management specifically, improving bidirectional communication among multiple health care providers
caring for the same patient may have a very important role in improving care transitions for patients,

especially those most vulnerable to anticoagulant ADEs (e.g., patients undergoing transitions across
health care settings) [79, 143]. Health information exchange, as it relates to interoperability between
pharmacy and laboratory systems, also affects safe delivery of anticoagulation. In spite of the
recognition that enhanced laboratorypharmacy linkages are key to improving the safety of medications
such as anticoagulants [144], challenges remains in the ability of diverse EHR products to exchange this
information so as to allow for delivery of more coordinated, effective, and efficient care [145]. Moving
forward, policies and standards that better facilitate health information exchange will also facilitate
improvement in care delivery, as it pertains to high-risk medications such as anticoagulants.
Opportunities to leverage EHR Meaningful Use requirements to advance anticoagulant

ADE prevention should be considered.
During development of the ADE Action Plan, the FIWs for ADEs recognized the importance of health care
quality measures in helping to advance ADE prevention efforts. In order to leverage the valuable
interagency collaborations brought about during development of the ADE Action Plan, the FIW for
Anticoagulant ADEs discussed and identified various health care quality measure considerations specific
to anticoagulant ADE prevention and monitoring that were potentially amenable for incorporation into
the EHR-based quality measure strategies. The FIW recommended a set of measure considerations
(Table 6) to the Quality Measures Workgroup of the Health Information Technology Policy Committee.
That committee, convened by the ONC, makes recommendations for candidate measures for the Stage
3 EHR MU requirements of the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. This will support and
advance anticoagulant ADE prevention and monitoring. In making its recommendations, the FIW for
Anticoagulant ADEs chose to recommend metrics based on clinical quality measures that were already in
existence, had been endorsed nationally, and had previously undergone a critical review process, or
metrics that closely mirrored processes or outcomes outlined by nationally recognized clinical
guidelines. After initial recommendation, measures under consideration are submitted to CMS for
further reviews, development, and testing. Final measure acceptance is dependent on rigorous and
complete internal and external public reviews.

Advance Anticoagulant ADE Prevention, as Proposed by the Federal Interagency Workgroup for ADEs
Metric Description and Justification
Clinical Quality Measure Blank
ConceptsEligible Providers
(Outpatient Settings)
1. Percent of patients on Proportion of patients
anticoagulants with INR test 7 With nonvalvular AF
to 14 days following out-of- On chronic warfarin therapy for >180 days before the start and during the
range INR measurement period
With previously stable therapeutic INRs, who had an INR test 7 to 14 days
after presenting with a single out-of-range INR below or above
therapeutic during the measurement period
Rationale Anticoagulation control, as measured by TTR, is improved by prompt,
repeat testing after out-of-range INR values [146, 147]
NQF Measure 0555 (see Table 5)
Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Blank
Rule ConceptsEligible Providers
2. INR Retesting Evaluation Clinical notification to assess need for INR test in patients on chronic
warfarin therapy (>180 days) and >30 days since last INR test*
Rationale NQF Measure 0555 (see Table 5)
2012 ACCP (Chest) GuidelinesRecommendation 3.1: For patients taking
VKA therapy with consistently stable INRs[recommend] INR testing
frequency of up to 12 weeks (Grade 2B). Stable INRs are defined as at
least 3 months of consistent results with no need to adjust VKA dosing.
When adjustments to the VKA dose are required, a cycle of more
frequent INR monitoring should be completed until a consistent pattern
of stable therapeutic INRs can be reestablished [4].
3. INR TestingInteracting Anti- Clinical notification in patients on chronic warfarin therapy (>180 days) for
infective Medication whom treatment with interacting anti-infective medication is initiated to
take one of the following actions: Instruct patients to hold warfarin dose,
change anti-infective medication, notify anticoagulation provider, schedule
INR retest.
VKAs avoid concomitant treatment with certain antibiotics (Grade 2C) [4]
Patient List
RecommendationEligible
Providers (Outpatient Settings)
4. Last INR Test Patient lists stratified by INR testing interval/time since last INR test (30
days, 60 days, 90 days, >90 days)
VKA therapy with consistently stable INRs[recommend] INR testing
frequency of up to 12 weeks (Grade 2B) [4]

Advance Anticoagulant ADE Prevention, as Proposed by the Federal Interagency Workgroup for ADEs
(continued)

EHR Functionality/Usability Blank
Hospitals (Inpatient Settings)
5. Inpatient Electronic EHRs should have the capacity to display linked pharmacy and laboratory
Anticoagulation Management data pertinent to anticoagulation management. An inpatient electronic
Flowsheet anticoagulation management flowsheet should display necessary data
elements
In one location
In an easily accessible format
As near real-time as possible
Abbreviations: ACCP = American College of Chest Physicians; AF = atrial fibrillation; EHR= electronic health record; INR =
international normalized ratio; NQF = National Quality Forum; TTR = time in therapeutic range; VKA = vitamin K antagonist (i.e.,
warfarin)
*Interval chosen to reflect that some patients may continue to be candidates for more frequent monitoring than every 12
weeks
Federal partners should continue to explore health care quality measures that target
optimizing anticoagulation management.
The FIW for Anticoagulant ADEs considered additional metrics in its discussions and articulated areas
where there are current gaps in national health care quality measures or EHR requirements as they
pertain to anticoagulation safety (Table 7). Some of these measure concepts can be operationalized
using non-EHR-based approaches; however, wherever feasible, development of these types of measures
with the intent of future adoption by EHRs (including e-prescribing and clinical decision support tools)
likely presents the most efficient and forward approach to measurement and minimizes reporting
burden for health systems and providers. Health care quality metrics that can potentially be further
developed and evaluated as discussed by the FIW included
Dosing decision support tool for patients receiving chronic warfarin therapy who are not
enrolled in a systematic and coordinated anticoagulation management program (e.g.,
anticoagulation clinic)
Followup on individual time in therapeutic range (iTTR) <65 percent for patients receiving
chronic warfarin therapy
Identification of patients with increased risk for anticoagulant-related bleeding who require
more frequent monitoring (e.g., HAS-BLED [hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke,
bleeding history or predisposition, labile INR, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly] score 3)

Appropriate dosing (and if applicable in the future, laboratory outcomes) of NOACs
Appropriate dosing of and laboratory outcomes for parenterally administered anticoagulant, in

addition to low-molecular-weight heparin (e.g., UFH, argatroban)
Metrics targeting clinical outcomes (e.g., bleeding events) versus limited to process measures
Metrics targeting transitions of care-based measures (e.g., hospital followup with ambulatory
care providers on discharge)
Table 7. Possible Areas for Health Care Quality Measure Concept Development Related to
Anticoagulant ADE Prevention and Current Barriers to Development
Measure Concept Current Barriers to Development

NOACs Evolving and early science
Dosing, adherence, and transitions among older and Lack of well-established laboratory markers for safety/
newer agents effectiveness (e.g., laboratory monitoring parameters)
Parenterally administered anticoagulants (hospital Lack of consensus and/or uniformity across sites as to
uses of anticoagulants) what constitutes optimal process measures (e.g.,
Pertinent laboratory monitoring parameters interfacility variations in target aPTTs)
Outcomes-based metrics Quality of diagnostic and procedural coding for
Bleeding events capturing anticoagulant-related bleeding events poorly
explored to date
Care transitions-related metrics Associated with complex, difficult-to-measure process
metrics (e.g., hand-offs, communication between
inpatient and outpatient providers)
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; aPTT = activated partial thromboplastin time; NOAC = new oral
anticoagulant
Research (Unanswered Questions)
As anticoagulation management practices evolve and new anticoagulant agents are introduced into
clinical practice, there are research opportunities that can potentially advance the field of
anticoagulation safety and for which Federal resources could be leveraged. These unanswered
questions are summarized in Figure 12.
Unanswered questions remain regarding the most efficient ways of identifying patients
at highest risk for anticoagulant-related bleeding.
One area of future research that Federal partners may be able to support relates to the need to identify
the impact of and reduce bleed rates in patients with underlying pathological lesions who are especially
predisposed to bleed. This research could entail better evaluating strategies that facilitate selection of

the appropriate anticoagulation treatment, given the patients history, or more efficiently identifying
and implementing early preemptive treatment (e.g., colonoscopic polypectomy for patients with
colorectal polyps, proton pump inhibitor therapy for patients with peptic ulcers). This research would
comport with evaluation of strategies aimed at better understanding factors that contribute to
anticoagulant-related bleeding risk (e.g., drugdrug interactions, concomitant use of antiplatelet drugs,
and genomic polymorphisms).
Further research and real-world experience with NOACs are needed.

Clinical trials take place in controlled conditions and often exclude patient populations at highest risk
for ADEs (e.g., older adults, children, pregnant women, patients with hepatic and renal insufficiency).
This is also largely true for clinical trials that have been carried out to date for NOACs; for this reason,
the safety and efficacy of NOACs in real-world settings requires further exploration. It will be
important for Federal partners to support research that furthers development of the evidence base in
key areas of NOAC management and safety, including (1) monitoring and assessing patients for
medication adherence, which is critical for ensuring optimal anticoagulation control with the NOACs,
given their short half-lives; (2) patient-centered approaches to selection of NOACs that balance an
individual patients risk of thromboembolism with the risk of bleeding and take into account the
differences among these agents in their efficacy and safety profiles; (3) development, use, and
interpretation of potential laboratory markers for NOACs; and (4) development and dissemination of
effective strategies for reversal of major or life-threatening bleeding associated with NOACs. Cost-
effectiveness studies comparing NOACs to warfarin will also be important [148, 149]. Future economic
analyses should take into account factors relating to the real-world application of these agents,
including medication adherence; special populations; level of anticoagulation control for warfarin, as
measured by TTR; and costs of anticoagulation services. For the first time in more than 5 decades,
health care providers are now faced with a multitude of medication choices for oral anticoagulation.
Additional research is needed to assist providers in identifying appropriate candidates to initiate or
transition to these new agents, taking into account a variety of patient-related factors, including
indication for anticoagulation therapy, INR stability, geographical access to laboratory INR monitoring,
history of medication nonadherence, co-morbid conditions, and concomitant drugs [22].
Advancing anticoagulant ADE prevention efforts will require that Federal partners
address emerging issues associated with safe use of NOACs.
Although the introduction of NOACs represents a significant advancement in the management of
thromboembolic disease, there are a number of challenges in use of NOACS, including: a lack of well-

established reversal strategies in the event of toxicity; the unclear role of clinical laboratory assays to
monitor levels of effectiveness or safety (e.g., in the event of thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events,
prior to invasive procedures, in the presence of interacting drugs or declining renal function); as well as
lack of health care provider familiarity with their use [22]. In addition, much remains to be learned
about NOACs in relation to their use in real-world scenarios (e.g., dosing in organ dysfunction, impact of
drugdrug interactions). There appear to be two primary areas in which Federal partners could engage
private sector stakeholders to facilitate ADE prevention strategies in relation to NOACs. First,
Federal/private collaboration may be important for developing algorithms to facilitate selection of the
optimal NOAC according to individualized, patient-centered, riskbenefit assessments (e.g., history of
previous exposure to anticoagulants, history of INR stability, co-morbidities, concomitant medications,
pharmacogenomics, costs, or clinical laboratory test results). Collaboration also could facilitate the
development of consensus guidelines/tools that define the care processes that constitute high quality of
care or adequate monitoring of NOACs. Second, Federal partners may be able to leverage the
resources of organizations, such as the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association
(NASCOLA) [150], to develop and disseminate clinical guidance for providers regarding appropriate use
of laboratory monitoring parameters to monitor NOAC effectiveness and safety. Other research
opportunities in the area of advancing NOAC safety include
Management of severe bleeding episodes (e.g., reversal protocols)
Periprocedural management medication interruptions for surgical or invasive procedures
Transitions among older and newer agents.
With regard to pharmacogenomic testing, there may be value in identifying patients who are at
highest risk for anticoagulant-related harms from the various NOACs [117]. Identifying these patients
would be especially important, given the lack of routine bedside clinical and laboratory monitoring
capacity that is currently available for these agents and the need to aid providers to the fullest extent
possible in selecting the agents most appropriate for their patient(s).

Advance Research Strategies for Anticoagulant ADE Prevention
Actions That Can Potentially Advance Research Areas for

Anticoagulation Safety
Clinical Science Domain
(AHRQ, CDC, FDA, publicprivate sector collaborations)
Identify barriers to utilization of anticoagulation clinic services and warfarin PST/PSM
utilization.
Identify factors that facilitate broader uptake of evidence-based anticoagulant ADE
prevention strategies.
Identify factors that contribute to interclinic variability among anticoagulation clinic
services (e.g., differences in patient risk profiles, targeting of excessively narrow INR
target ranges).
Support development of tools that facilitate optimal real-world management of
bleeding events related to NOACs, including development of algorithms to facilitate
selection of the optimal anticoagulant agent according to individualized, patient-
centered risk-benefit assessments (e.g., history of previous exposure to
anticoagulants, co-morbidities, concomitant medications, pharmacogenomics, costs,
clinical laboratory test results).
Laboratory/Bench-top Science Domain

(CDC, NIH, publicprivate sector collaborations)
Support development and improvement of laboratory assays for NOACs (including
monitoring levels of anticoagulation, predicting effectiveness/risk).
Identify any remaining or new areas where pharmacogenomics-guided
anticoagulation management may be useful, including those pertinent to NOACs.
Education Domain
Support development and evaluation of educational tools and programs related to

high-quality anticoagulation management for patients, caregivers, and health care
providers.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; INR = international normalized ratio; NOAC = new oral anticoagulant;
PSM = patient self-management; PST = patient self-testing

References
1. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, Carnethon M, Dai S, De Simone G, et al. Executive
summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2010 update: a report from the American Heart
Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7): 948-54.
2. Heit JA. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community. Arterioscler Thromb
Vasc Biol. 2008;28(3):370-2.
3. Mahan CE, Borrego ME, Woersching AL, Federici R, Downey R, Tiongson J, et al. Venous
thromboembolism: annualised United States models for total, hospital-acquired and
preventable costs utilising long-term attack rates. Thromb Haemost. 2012;108(2):291-302.
4. Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM, Vandvik PO, Fish J, Kovacs MJ, et al. Evidence-based
management of anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis,
9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e152S-84S.
5. Wysowski DK, Nourjah P, Swartz L. Bleeding complications with warfarin use: a prevalent
adverse effect resulting in regulatory action. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(13):1414-9.
6. Raji MA, Lowery M, Lin YL, Kuo YF, Baillargeon J, Goodwin JS. National utilization patterns of
warfarin use in older patients with atrial fibrillation: a population-based study of Medicare Part
D beneficiaries. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(1):35-42.
7. Kirley K, Qato DM, Kornfield R, Stafford RS, Alexander GC. National trends in oral anticoagulant
use in the United States, 2007 to 2011. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(5):615-21.
8. Shehab N, Sperling LS, Kegler SR, Budnitz DS. National estimates of emergency department
visits for hemorrhage-related adverse events from clopidogrel plus aspirin and from warfarin.
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1926-33.
events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(21):2002-12.
10. Zareh M, Davis A, Henderson S. Reversal of warfarin-induced hemorrhage in the emergency
department. West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(4):386-92.
11. Landefeld CS, Beyth RJ. Anticoagulant-related bleeding: clinical epidemiology, prediction, and
prevention. Am J Med. 1993;95(3):315-28
12. Miller CS, Grandi SM, Shimony A, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of
new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) versus warfarin in patients with
atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(3):453-60.
13. Capodanno D, Capranzano P, Giacchi G, Calvi V, Tamburino C. Novel oral anticoagulants versus
warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of 50,578 patients. Int J Cardiol.
2013;167(4):1237-41.

14. Dogliotti A, Paolasso E, Giugliano RP. Novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a meta-
analysis of large, randomized, controlled trials vs warfarin. Clin Cardiol. 2013;36(2):61-7.
15. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, Hoffman EB, Deenadayalu N, Ezekowitz MD, et al.
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with
atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9921):955-62.
16. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, Halperin JL, et al. Edoxaban versus
warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093-104.
17. Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, Mismetti P, Schellong S, Eriksson H, et al. Dabigatran versus
warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med.
2009;361(24):2342-52.
18. Bller HR, Prins MH, Lensin AW, Dcousus H, Jacobson BF, Minar E, et al. Oral rivaroxaban for
the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(14):1287-97.
19. Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, Curto M, Gallus AS, Johnson M, et al. Oral apixaban for the
treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(9):799-808.
20. Bller HR, Dcousus H, Grosso MA, Mercuri M, Middeldorp S, Prins MH, et al. Edoxaban versus
warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med.
2013;369(15):1406-15.
21. Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, Schellong S, Eriksson H, Baanstra D, et al. Extended use of
dabigatran, warfarin, or placebo in venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):709-
18.
22. Ansell J. New oral anticoagulants should not be used as first-line agents to prevent
thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2012;125(1):165-70;
discussion 170.
23. Kim MM, Metlay J, Cohen A, Feldman H, Hennessy S, Kimmel S, et al. Hospitalization costs
associated with warfarin-related bleeding events among older community-dwelling adults.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(7):731-6.
24. Fanikos J, Stapinski C, Koo S, Kucher N, Tsilimingras K, Goldhaber SZ. Medication errors
associated with anticoagulant therapy in the hospital. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94(4):532-5.
25. Fanikos J, Cina JL, Baroletti S, Fiumara K, Matta L, Goldhaber SZ. Adverse drug events in
hospitalized cardiac patients. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(9):1465-9.
26. Grissinger MC, Hicks RW, Keroack MA, Marella WM, Vaida AJ. Harmful medication errors
involving unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin in three patient safety reporting
programs. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(5):195-202.
27. Piazza G, Nguyen TN, Cios D, Labreche M, Hohlfelder B, Fanikos J, et al. Anticoagulation-
associated adverse drug events. Am J Med. 2011;124(12):1136-42.
28. Burnett AE, Trujillo TC. The future of inpatient anticoagulation management. J Thromb
Thrombolysis. 2013;35(3):375-86.

29. Nutescu EA, Wittkowsky AK, Burnett A, Merli GJ, Ansell JE, Garcia DA. Delivery of optimized
inpatient anticoagulation therapy: consensus statement from the anticoagulation forum. Ann
Pharmacother. 2013;47(5):714-24.
30. Theodorou AA, Palmieri A, Szychowski JA, Sehman ML, Swarna V. Prescription utilization of the
oral anticoagulants. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2012;4(3):120-23.
31. van Walraven C, Jennings A, Oake N, Fergusson D, Forster AJ. Effect of study setting on
anticoagulation control: a systematic review and metaregression. Chest. 2006;129(5):1155-66.
32. Drewes HW, Lambooij MS, Baan CA, Meijboom BR, Graafmans WC, Westert GP. Needs and
barriers to improve the collaboration in oral anticoagulant therapy: a qualitative study. BMC
Cardiovasc Disord. 2011;11:76.
33. Ageno W, Gallus AS, Wittkowsky A, Crowther M, Hylek EM, Palareti G, et al. Oral anticoagulant
therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of
Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e44S-
88S.
34. Metlay JP, Hennessy S, Localio AR, Han X, Yang W, Cohen A, et al. Patient reported receipt of
medication instructions for warfarin is associated with reduced risk of serious bleeding events. J
Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1589-94.
35. Chiquette E, Amato MG, Bussey HI. Comparison of an anticoagulation clinic with usual medical
care: anticoagulation control, patient outcomes, and health care costs. Arch Intern Med.
1998;158(15):1641-7.
36. Chamberlain MA, Sageser NA, Ruiz D. Comparison of anticoagulation clinic patient outcomes
with outcomes from traditional care in a family medicine clinic. J Am Board Fam Pract.
2001;14(1):16-21.
37. Rudd KM, Dier JG. Comparison of two different models of anticoagulation management services
with usual medical care. Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30(4):330-8.
38. Coyle D, Coyle K, Cameron C, Lee K, Kelly S, Steiner S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of new oral
anticoagulants compared with warfarin in preventing stroke and other cardiovascular events in
patients with atrial fibrillation. Value Health. 2013;16(4):498-506.
39. Harrington AR, Armstrong EP, Nolan PE, Jr., Malone DC. Cost-effectiveness of apixaban,
dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Stroke.
2013;44(6):1676-81.
40. Mahmoudi M, Sobieraj DM. The cost-effectiveness of oral direct factor Xa inhibitors compared
with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis
in total hip or knee replacement surgery. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(12):1333-40.
41. Lucado J, Paez K, Elixhauser A. Medication-Related Adverse Outcomes in U.S. Hospitals and
Emergency Departments, 2008: Statistical Brief #109. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project
(HCUP) Statistical Briefs 2011; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Available from: http://www.hcup-

us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb109.pdf.
42. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG). Adverse
events in hospitals: national incidence among Medicare beneficiaries. Report No.: OEI-06-09-
0090. November 2010; Washington, DC. Available from: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-
06-09-00090.pdf
43. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. The costs of adverse drug
events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA.
1997;277(4):307-11.
44. Hug BL, Witkowski DJ, Sox CM, Keohane CA, Seger DL, Yoon C, et al. Adverse drug event rates in
six community hospitals and the potential impact of computerized physician order entry for
prevention. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):31-8.
45. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, Teich JM, Bates DW. Identifying hospital admissions due to
adverse drug events using a computer-based monitor. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf.
2001;10(2):113-9.
46. McDonnell PJ, Jacobs MR. Hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse drug
reactions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36(9):1331-6.
47. Wu WK, Pantaleo N. Evaluation of outpatient adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalization.
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(3):253-9.
48. Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. Adverse drug events occurring following
hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(4):317-23.
2006;296(15):1858-66.
50. Budnitz DS, Shehab N, Kegler SR, Richards CL. Medication use leading to emergency department
visits for adverse drug events in older adults Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(11):755-65.
51. Ruiz B, Garcia M, Aguirre U, Aguirre C. Factors predicting hospital readmissions related to
adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(7):715-22.
52. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Avorn J, McCormick D, Jain S, Eckler M, et al. Incidence and preventability
of adverse drug events in nursing homes. Am J Med. 2000;109(2):87-94.
53. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Judge J, Rochon P, Harrold LR, Cadoret C, et al. The incidence of adverse
drug events in two large academic long-term care facilities. Am J Med. 2005;118(3):251-8.
54. Field TS, Tjia J, Mazor KM, Donovan JL, Kanaan AO, Harrold LR, et al. Randomized trial of a
warfarin communication protocol for nursing homes: an SBAR-based approach. Am J Med.
2011;124(2):179 e1-7.
55. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Radford MJ, Harrold LR, Becker R, Reed G, et al. The safety of warfarin
therapy in the nursing home setting. Am J Med. 2007;120(6):539-44.

56. Aspinall SL, Zhao X, Handler SM, Stone RA, Kosmoski JC, Libby EA, et al. The quality of warfarin
prescribing and monitoring in Veterans Affairs nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc.
2010;58(8):1475-80.
57. McCormick D, Gurwitz JH, Goldberg RJ, Becker R, Tate JP, Elwell A, et al. Prevalence and quality
of warfarin use for patients with atrial fibrillation in the long-term care setting. Arch Intern Med.
2001;161(20):2458-63
58. You JJ, Singer DE, Howard PA, Lane DA, Eckman MH, Fang MC, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for
atrial fibrillation: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American
College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2
Suppl):e531S-75S.
59. Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, Cushman M, Dentali F, Akl EA, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical
patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of
Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e195S-
226S.
60. Guyatt GH, Eikelboom JW, Gould MK, Garcia DA, Crowther M, Murad MH, et al. Approach to
outcome measurement in the prevention of thrombosis in surgical and medical patients:
Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest
Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e185S-94S.
61. Gage BF, Boechler M, Doggette AL, Fortune G, Flaker GC, Rich MW, et al. Adverse outcomes and
predictors of underuse of antithrombotic therapy in medicare beneficiaries with chronic atrial
fibrillation. Stroke. 2000;31(4):822-7.
62. Zimetbaum PJ, Thosani A, Yu HT, Xiong Y, Lin J, Kothawala P, et al. Are atrial fibrillation patients
receiving warfarin in accordance with stroke risk? Am J Med. 2010;123(5):446-53.
63. Caro JJ. An economic model of stroke in atrial fibrillation: the cost of suboptimal oral
anticoagulation. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(14 Suppl):S451-58; discussion S458-61.
64. Mahan CE, Holdsworth MT, Welch SM, Borrego M, Spyropoulos AC. Deep-vein thrombosis: a
United States cost model for a preventable and costly adverse event. Thromb Haemost.
2011;106(3):405-15.
65. Casciano JP, Dotiwala ZJ, Martin BC, Kwong WJ. The costs of warfarin underuse and
nonadherence in patients with atrial fibrillation: a commercial insurer perspective. J Manag
Care Pharm. 2013;19(4):302-16.
66. Chen SY, Wu N, Gulseth M, LaMori J, Bookhart BK, Boulanger L, et al. One-year adherence to
warfarin treatment for venous thromboembolism in high-risk patients and its association with
long-term risk of recurrent events. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(4):291-301.
67. Beyth RJ, Antani MR, Covinsky KE, Miller DG, Chren MM, Quinn LM, et al. Why isn't warfarin
prescribed to patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation? J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11(12):721-8.

68. Fang MC, Panguluri P, Machtinger EL, Schillinger D. Language, literacy, and characterization of
stroke among patients taking warfarin for stroke prevention: Implications for health
communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(3):403-10.
69. Tully MP, Ashcroft DM, Dornan T, Lewis PJ, Taylor D, Wass V. The causes of and factors
associated with prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review. Drug Saf.
2009;32(10):819-36.
70. Flaker GC, McGowan DJ, Boechler M, Fortune G, Gage B. Underutilization of antithrombotic
therapy in elderly rural patients with atrial fibrillation. Am Heart J. 1999;137(2):307-12.
71. Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current
perspectives and future needs. JAMA. 1999;281(9):824-9.
72. Southworth MR, Reichman ME, Unger EF. Dabigatran and postmarketing reports of bleeding. N
Engl J Med. 2013;368(14):1272-4.
73. Witt DM, Delate T, Garcia DA, Clark NP, Hylek EM, Ageno W, et al. Risk of thromboembolism,
recurrent hemorrhage, and death after warfarin therapy interruption for gastrointestinal tract
bleeding. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(19):1484-91.
74. Jasuja GK, Reisman JI, Miller DR, Berlowitz DR, Hylek EM, Ash AS, et al. Identifying major
hemorrhage with automated data: results of the Veterans Affairs study to improve
anticoagulation (VARIA). Thromb Res. 2013;131(1):31-6.
75. Arnason T, Wells PS, van Walraven C, Forster AJ. Accuracy of coding for possible warfarin
complications in hospital discharge abstracts. Thromb Res. 2006;118(2):253-62.
76. Leonard CE, Haynes K, Localio AR, Hennessy S, Tjia J, Cohen A, et al. Diagnostic E-codes for
commonly used, narrow therapeutic index medications poorly predict adverse drug events. J
Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):561-71.
77. Cunningham A, Stein CM, Chung CP, Daugherty JR, Smalley WE, Ray WA. An automated
database case definition for serious bleeding related to oral anticoagulant use.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(6):560-6.
78. Schulman S, Kearon C. Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and
Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in
non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692-4.
79. Wittkowsky AK. Impact of target-specific oral anticoagulants on transitions of care and
outpatient care models. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2013;35(3):304-11.
80. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology. Health Information Exchange. Washington, DC. Available from:
http://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/health-information-exchange/hie-benefits.
81. Caraballo D, Spyropoulos AC, Mahan CE. Identifying, monitoring and reducing preventable
major bleeds in the hospital setting. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2013;36(1):7-13.

82. The Joint Commission. 2014 Hospital National Patient Safety Goals. October 24, 2013; Oak
Brook, IL. Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/2014_HAP_NPSG_E.pdf.
83. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Organizations release new tools for reducing medication
errors. December 10, 2002; Horsham, PA. Available from:
http://www.ismp.org/Tools/pathways.asp.
84. Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program. National Quality Forum's 34 safe practices and the
HFAP related standards. 2013; Chicago, IL. Available from:
http://www.hfap.org/pdf/patient_safety.pdf.
85. Ng VL. Anticoagulation monitoring. Clin Lab Med. 2009;29(2):283-304.
Information Technology. Health Information Technology Patient Safety Action and Surveillance
Plan. July 2, 2013; Washington, DC. Available from:
http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/safety_plan_master.pdf
87. Anticoagulation Forum. Anticoagulation Centers of Excellence. Newton, MA. Available from:
http://excellence.acforum.org/.
88. Rapp D, Hendrich A, Isetts BJ. Application of a high reliability framework to anticoagulation
safety. (Unpublished manuscript).
89. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
About the Partnership for Patients. Washington, DC. Available from:
http://partnershipforpatients.cms.gov/about-the-
partnership/aboutthepartnershipforpatients.html.
90. Dager WE, Branch JM, King JH, White RH, Quan RS, Musallam NA, et al. Optimization of
inpatient warfarin therapy: impact of daily consultation by a pharmacist-managed
anticoagulation service. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34(5):567-72.
91. Bond CA, Raehl CL. Pharmacist-provided anticoagulation management in United States
hospitals: death rates, length of stay, Medicare charges, bleeding complications, and
transfusions. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24(8):953-63.
92. Donovan JL, Drake JA, Whittaker P, Tran MT. Pharmacy-managed anticoagulation: assessment
of in-hospital efficacy and evaluation of financial impact and community acceptance. J Thromb
Thrombolysis. 2006;22(1):23-30.
93. Schillig J, Kaatz S, Hudson M, Krol GD, Szandzik EG, Kalus JS. Clinical and safety impact of an
inpatient pharmacist-directed anticoagulation service. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(6):322-8.
94. Mardon RE, Khanna K, Sorra J, Dyer N, Famolaro T. Exploring relationships between hospital
patient safety culture and adverse events. J Patient Saf. 2010;6(4):226-32.
95. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Develop a Culture of Safety. April 2011; Cambridge, MA.
Available from: http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Changes/DevelopaCultureofSafety.aspx.

96. Weaver SJ, Lubomksi LH, Wilson RF, Pfoh ER, Martinez KA, Dy SM. Promoting a culture of safety
as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 Pt 2):369-74.
97. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Get Smart for Healthcare: core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs. Available
from: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/healthcare/implementation/core-elements.html.
98. Ansell JE, Hughes R. Evolving models of warfarin management: anticoagulation clinics, patient
self-monitoring, and patient self-management. Am Heart J. 1996;132(5):1095-100.
99. Nutescu EA. Anticoagulation management services: entering a new era. Pharmacotherapy.
2010;30(4):327-9.
100. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. Internal data, 2008.
101. Witt DM, Humphries TL. A retrospective evaluation of the management of excessive
anticoagulation in an established clinical pharmacy anticoagulation service compared to
traditional care. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2003;15(2):113-8.
102. Bungard TJ, Gardner L, Archer SL, Hamilton P, Ritchie B, Tymchak W, et al. Evaluation of a
pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic: Improving patient care. Open Med. 2009;3(1):e16-
21.
103. Gray DR, Garabedian-Ruffalo SM, Chretien SD. Cost-justification of a clinical pharmacist-
managed anticoagulation clinic. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1985;19(7-8):575-80.
104. Hamby L, Weeks WB, Malikowski C. Complications of warfarin therapy: causes, costs, and the
role of the anticoagulation clinic. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3(4):179-84.
105. Fitzmaurice DA, Blann AD, Lip GY. Bleeding risks of antithrombotic therapy. BMJ.
2002;325(7368):828-31.
106. Poon IO, Lal L, Brown EN, Braun UK. The impact of pharmacist-managed oral anticoagulation
therapy in older veterans. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32(1):21-9.
107. Matchar DB, Jacobson AK, Edson RG, Lavori PW, Ansell JE, Ezekowitz MD, et al. The impact of
patient self-testing of prothrombin time for managing anticoagulation: rationale and design of
VA Cooperative Study #481--the Home INR Study (THINRS). J Thromb Thrombolysis.
2005;19(3):163-72.
108. Wittkowsky AK, Nutescu EA, Blackburn J, Mullins J, Hardman J, Mitchell J, et al. Outcomes of
oral anticoagulant therapy managed by telephone vs in-office visits in an anticoagulation clinic
setting. Chest. 2006;130(5):1385-9.
109. Bussey HI. Transforming oral anticoagulation by combining international normalized ratio (INR)
self testing and online automated management. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011;31(3):265-74.
110. Zineh I, Pacanowski M, Woodcock J. Pharmacogenetics and coumarin dosing--recalibrating
expectations. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2273-5.

111. Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, Grove AS, Barton S, Nicholas ZP, et al. Randomized trial of
genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation.
Circulation. 2007;116(22):2563-70.
112. Schelleman H, Chen J, Chen Z, Christie J, Newcomb CW, Brensinger CM, et al. Dosing algorithms
to predict warfarin maintenance dose in Caucasians and African Americans. Clin Pharmacol
Ther. 2008;84(3):332-9.
113. Finkelman BS, Gage BF, Johnson JA, Brensinger CM, Kimmel SE. Genetic warfarin dosing: tables
versus algorithms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(5):612-8.
114. Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, Woller SC, Samuelson KM, Mansfield JW, et al. A
randomized and clinical effectiveness trial comparing two pharmacogenetic algorithms and
standard care for individualizing warfarin dosing (CoumaGen-II). Circulation.
2012;125(16):1997-2005.
115. McKinnon RA, Ward MB, Sorich MJ. A critical analysis of barriers to the clinical implementation
of pharmacogenomics. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007;3(5):751-9.
116. Ginsburg GS, Voora D. The long and winding road to warfarin pharmacogenetic testing. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(25):2813-5.
117. Cavallari LH, Shin J, Perera MA. Role of pharmacogenomics in the management of traditional
and novel oral anticoagulants. Pharmacotherapy. 2011;31(12):1192-207.
118. Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, Johnson JA, Anderson JL, Gage BF, et al. A pharmacogenetic
versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(24):2283-93.
119. American Medical Directors Association. Long Term Care Physicians Information Tool Kit:
Antithrombotic Therapy in the Long Term Care Setting. 2012; Columbia, MD. Available from:
http://www.amda.com/resources/ltcis.cfm#LTCANT1.
120. Khan TI, Kamali F, Kesteven P, Avery P, Wynne H. The value of education and self-monitoring in
the management of warfarin therapy in older patients with unstable control of anticoagulation.
Br J Haematol. 2004;126(4):557-64.
121. Beyth RJ, Quinn L, Landefeld CS. A multicomponent intervention to prevent major bleeding
complications in older patients receiving warfarin. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern
Med. 2000;133(9):687-95.
122. Pernod G, Labarere J, Yver J, Satger B, Allenet B, Berremili T, et al. EDUC'AVK: reduction of oral
anticoagulant-related adverse events after patient education: a prospective multicenter open
randomized study. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(9):1441-66.
123. Wilhelm SM, Petrovitch EA. Implementation of an inpatient anticoagulation teaching service:
expanding the role of pharmacy students and residents in patient education. Am J Health Syst
Pharm. 2011;68(21):2086-93.
124. Wong PY, Schulman S, Woodworth S, Holbrook A. Supplemental patient education for patients
taking oral anticoagulants: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost.
2013;11(3):491-502.

125. Estrada CA, Hryniewicz MM, Higgs VB, Collins C, Byrd JC. Anticoagulant patient information
material is written at high readability levels. Stroke. 2000;31(12):2966-70.
126. Diamantouros A, Bartle W, Geerts W. Patient information about warfarin: an assessment of
accuracy and readability. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):582-3.
127. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Patient safety primers: medication reconciliation. October 2012. Available from:
http://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer.aspx?primerID=1 .
128. Walker PC, Bernstein SJ, Jones JN, Piersma J, Kim HW, Regal RE, et al. Impact of a pharmacist-
facilitated hospital discharge program: a quasi-experimental study. Arch Intern Med.
2009;169(21):2003-10.
129. Kripalani S, Roumie CL, Dalal AK, Cawthon C, Businger A, Eden SK, et al. Effect of a pharmacist
intervention on clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge: a randomized
trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):1-10.
130. Mueller SK, Sponsler KC, Kripalani S, Schnipper JL. Hospital-based medication reconciliation
practices: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(14):1057-69.
131. Kwan JL, Lo L, Sampson M, Shojania KG. Medication reconciliation during transitions of care as a
patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 Pt 2):397-403.
Hospital Compare. Available from: http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html
Hospital Compare: Measures displayed on hospital compare. Available from:
http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/Data/Measures-Displayed.html
134. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Quality Indicators. Available from: http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/
135. National Quality Forum. Measures, reports and tools. Washington, DC. Available from:
https://www.qualityforum.org/Measures_Reports_Tools.aspx
136. Goldhaber SZ, Tapson VF, Committee DFS. A prospective registry of 5,451 patients with
ultrasound-confirmed deep vein thrombosis. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(2):259-62.
137. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). ASHP Anticoagulation Report:
Reimbursement for pharmacists services in a hospital-based pharmacist-managed
anticoagulation clinic. June 2009; Bethesda, MD. Available from:
http://www.ashp.org/DocLibrary/News/Pharmacist_managed_Anticoagulation_Clinics.pdf
138. Roche Diagnostics Corporation. Roche CoaguChek Systems: 2009 Medicare Reimbursement
Handbook for Healthcare Professionals. 2009; Indianapolis, IN. Available from:
http://www.poc.roche.com/en_US/pdf/44156_Coag2009Handbook_FINAL_APPROVED.pdf

139. American Pharmacists Association. Smart spend that pays: APhA advances provider status
initiative. January 2013; Washington, DC. Available from:
http://www.pharmacist.com/%E2%80%98smart-spend-pays%E2%80%99-apha-advances-
provider-status-initiative.
140. Soman S. We petition the Obama Administration to: "Recognize pharmacists as health care
providers!". We the People: your voice in government. January 2013; Washington, DC.
Available from: http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/recognize-pharmacists-health-care-
providers/3lkFWfvw
141. Wittkowsky AK, Sekreta CM, Nutescu EA, Ansell J. Barriers to patient self-testing of prothrombin
time: national survey of anticoagulation practitioners. Pharmacotherapy. 2005;25(2):265-9.
142. Williams C, Mostashari F, Mertz K, Hogin E, Atwal P. From the Office of the National
Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. Health Aff
(Millwood). 2012;31(3):527-36.
143. Garcia DA, Lopes RD, Hylek EM. New-onset atrial fibrillation and warfarin initiation: high risk
periods and implications for new antithrombotic drugs. Thromb Haemost. 2010;104(6):1099-
105.
144. Schiff GD, Klass D, Peterson J, Shah G, Bates DW. Linking laboratory and pharmacy:
opportunities for reducing errors and improving care. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(8):893-900.
Information Technology. EHR Standards and Interoperability. Washington, DC. Available from:
http://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/ehr-interoperability
146. Rose AJ, Hylek EM, Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Reisman JI, Ozonoff A. Prompt repeat testing after
out-of-range INR values: a quality indicator for anticoagulation care. Circ Cardiovasc Qual
Outcomes. 2011;4(3):276-82.
147. Schulman S, Melinyshyn A, Ennis D, Rudd-Scott L. Single-dose adjustment versus no adjustment
of warfarin in stably anticoagulated patients with an occasional international normalized ratio
(INR) out of range. Thromb Res. 2010;125(5):393-7.
148. Biskupiak J, Ghate SR, Jiao T, Brixner D. Cost implications of formulary decisions on oral
anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013; 19(9): 789-98.
149. You JH. Novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin therapy at various levels of anticoagulation
control in atrial fibrillationa cost-effectivess analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29(3): 438-46.
150. North American Specialized Coagulation Laborator Association (NASCOLA). About NASCOLA.
2014; Rochester, MN. Available from: http://www.nascola.org/Mission.aspx

SECTION
Diabetes Agents
6
According to the CDC, diabetes mellitus affects 25.8 million people or 8.3 percent of the U.S. population
[1]. In 2010, the national prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus among persons 20
years of age and older was estimated to be about 258 million persons, or 11 percent of all persons in
this age range. For those 65 years of age or older, the prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed
diabetes was estimated to be 10.9 million persons, or 27 percent of all persons in this age group.
Among the 26 million individuals living with diabetes, it is estimated that 95 percent have type 2
diabetes. Patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk for serious long-term complications, such as
cardiovascular disease and kidney disease [1]. Insulin and oral diabetes agents play an important role in
controlling glycemic levels in patients with diabetes mellitus, thereby helping to prevent these
complications. Among adults diagnosed with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, 18 percent take insulin
only, 13 percent take both insulin and oral medication, 50 percent take oral medication only, and 18
percent do not take either insulin or oral medication [1].
Recognizing that not all diabetes agents are associated with severe hypoglycemia (e.g., metformin
monotherapy), this section of the ADE Action Plan will use the term diabetes agents associated with
serious hypoglycemia to refer to insulin and secretagogue oral agents, predominantly sulfonylureas.
Because of inconsistent definitions in the literature, the FIW for Diabetes Agents ADEs has chosen to use
the term serious hypoglycemia, recognizing that this terminology does not represent Federal or
agency perspectives. For the purpose of this Action Plan, serious hypoglycemia is defined as requiring
third-party assistance (e.g., from a family member and/or medical personnel, or leading to an
emergency department visit or hospital admissions) or blood glucose lower than 40 mg/dL, recognizing
that there is a gradient of severity in these episodes (discussed further below).
The increasing burden of serious hypoglycemic events has been recognized as an important public
health issue, potentially affecting millions of persons [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Historically, many but not all agencies

Section 6 | Diabetes Agents
and organizations have emphasized intensive glycemic therapy (defined as attempting to achieve
HbA1c values < 7 percent) as a goal for most persons with diabetes. However, an increase in rates of
serious hypoglycemic events among patients in intensive control groups compared with those in
generalized control groups has now been observed in several clinical trials, such as ADVANCE (Action in
Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluations), ACCORD (Action To
Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) and VADT (VA Diabetes Trial), which noted an increase in the
rate of serious hypoglycemic events among patients in their intensive control groups compared with
those assigned to the more generalized control group [7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. This occurred in the absence of
significant health benefit. In a large health maintenance organization, the risk for hypoglycemia tended
to be higher in patients with either near-normal or very poor glycemic control [12].
Diabetes agents, including insulin and secretagogues, are common causes of

hypoglycemic events across inpatient and outpatient health care settings.
Inpatient Settings
In a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2008, hypoglycemia was
identified as the third most common ADE [13]. Nearly all identified cases of hypoglycemia in this report
were considered to be preventable. In other studies, clinically significant hypoglycemia (defined as <40
mg/dL) has been identified in 0.4 percent of non-ICU patient days, 1.9 percent of ICU patient days, and 2
percent to 5 percent of hospitalized patients with diabetes [14, 15, 16]. Hypoglycemia, defined as <50
mg/dL, was reported to account for 2.8 percent of patient days, 1.8 percent of hospitalized days, and 7.7
percent of admissions across three separate studies [17, 18, 19]. In addition, on the basis of 25,145
hospital visits in the 2004 Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (MPSMS) sample, an estimated
10.7 percent of patients exposed to insulin or oral diabetes agents experienced an ADE [20].
The Institute for Safe Medication Practice (ISMP) has identified insulin as an inpatient high-alert
medication [21]. Data indicate that approximately one-quarter of all patient safety incidents involving
insulin resulted in patient harm, and insulin may be implicated in 33 percent of medication errorrelated
deaths [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Insulin-related medication errors have been reported across all units of
the hospital and can occur at multiple stages of the medication use process, with the majority of errors
occurring at the time of prescribing and administration [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

Outpatient Settings
Diabetes agents (i.e., insulin and oral agents) are among the most common medication classes resulting
in U.S. emergent hospitalizations for ADEs [27]. Between 2007 and 2009, among persons older than 65
years of age, insulin was implicated in an estimated 13.9 percent of emergent hospitalizations and oral
agents were implicated in 10.7 percent of U.S. emergent hospitalizations annually [27]. From 1999 to
2010, preliminary data indicate that rates of hospital admissions for hypoglycemic events among
Medicare beneficiaries increased by 22.3 percent while the rates of hospital admissions for
hyperglycemia significantly decreased [27]. However, these data may underestimate the magnitude of
the problem, as most hypoglycemic episodes are often treated outside of the emergency department or
hospital setting [28]. In a survey of persons with diabetes from a large HMO, the self-reported rate of
serious hypoglycemia (i.e., needing third-party assistance) in the year prior to the survey was 30 percent
for insulin, 9 percent for secretagogues, and 6 percent for other non-hypoglycemic medications [29, 30].
In addition, studies have shown that higher frequencies of severe/serious hypoglycemic events were
associated with lower socioeconomic status, duration of the disease, and depression [31, 32, 33].
Long-Term Care (LTC) Settings

CMS data indicate that approximately 33.4 percent of individuals receiving services in a certified nursing
home have either type 1 or type 2 diabetes [34]. Recent data regarding the burden of hypoglycemic
events among individuals residing in LTC facilities are not available. However, the primary risk factors
for hypoglycemia (e.g., advanced age, recent hospitalization, and polypharmacy) are highly prevalent
among nursing home residents [35, 36].
National surveillance data for hypoglycemia need to better distinguish between serious
and minor hypoglycemic events.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) defines serious hypoglycemia as a situation requiring help from a
third party (e.g., by family member, paramedic, or emergency department personnel) [31]. The ADA has
also defined documented symptomatic hypoglycemia as an event during which typical symptoms of
hypoglycemia are accompanied by a measured plasma glucose concentration 70 mg/dL. In contrast, mild
or minor episodes are classified as events that are self-treated [31]. In clinical care, hypoglycemic events in
patients with diabetes may be defined as an abnormally low plasma glucose concentration that exposes
the individual to potential or actual harm [32, 37]. However, these definitions have not been consistently
utilized in published studies. Thus, the incidence of hypoglycemia reported in the literature is varied, and
incidence in those at highest risk for these events is unknown [32, 37].

Surveillance
Federal partners should promote efforts to collect accurate and timely data to more
effectively measure burden and trends of hypoglycemic events.
Currently, a limited number of Federal surveillance systems have the capacity to assess the national
scope of hypoglycemic events associated with diabetes agents. Examples of these systems are
summarized in Table 8. Despite availability of these systems, several challenges remain in identifying
hypoglycemic events associated with diabetes agents. First, definitions for hypoglycemia are variable,
making comparisons of results among surveillance systems and the literature difficult. Second, many
existing Federal and private sector health systems do not have sufficiently integrated data systems that
can provide the comprehensive information necessary to identify persons at risk for hypoglycemic
events and enable precise categorization of numerators and denominators across the continuum of
care. Third, existing surveillance metrics may need to be revisited to ensure accuracy, reliability, and
clinical relevance consistent with current medical knowledge. Finally, the accuracy of diagnostic and
procedural codes (International Classification of Disease [ICD] codes, including External Causes of Injury
[E-codes]) for identifying hypoglycemic events need to be further evaluated; the limited data that are
available, however, suggest an algorithmic approach to use of such codes is necessary to reliably capture
hypoglycemic events associated with diabetes agents [38]. The development of more robust EHR
systems can potentially support the creation of new clinical quality measures and decision support tools
to facilitate improvements in the identification and management of patients with hypoglycemia.
Table 8. Summary of Metrics Related to Diabetes Agent ADEs (Hypoglycemia), Collected by Federal
Surveillance Systems
Data Diabetes Agent ADE or
Geographic Collection Management Metrics: Diabetes Agent ADE or Management Metrics:
Scope Methods Inpatient Setting Outpatient Setting
National ADE Administrative AHRQ (HCUP):* FDA (Sentinel Initiative, Mini-Sentinel): **
Incidence claims and/or Inpatient stays with ICD-9-CM ED visits, hospitalizations for hypoglycemic
EHR data (962.3) codes and E-codes (E932.3) events
National ADE Medical record AHRQ (MPSMS): *** CDC (NEISS-CADES):
Incidence review Inpatient stays with combination of ED visits, emergent hospitalizations for
(+/-Rates) laboratory triggers (e.g., glucose 50 laboratory abnormalities, hypoglycemic
mg/dL or glucose 70 mg/dL but >50 events as diagnosed by clinicians, and
mg/dL) and clinical triggers (e.g., documented in medical record narrative
administrations of D50)
National ADE Administrative Not available AHRQ (NEDS):
Incidence data and Derived from AHRQs State ED databases and
survey data from State inpatient database
Used to estimate number of events (i.e.,
numerator data)

Table 8. Summary of Metrics Related to Diabetes Agent ADEs (Hypoglycemia) Collected by Federal
Surveillance Systems (continued)
Data Diabetes Agent ADE or
Geographic Collection Management Metrics: Diabetes Agent ADE or Management Metrics:
Scope Methods Inpatient Setting Outpatient Setting
ED visits with hypoglycemia as first-listed
diagnosis were identified using a validated
algorithm.
Estimates of population with diabetes from
NHIS were used in the calculation of rates.
CDC (National Health Interview Survey, NHIS)
Estimates of civilian, non-institutionalized
U.S. population with diabetes (denominator
data that can be used for calculation of ADE
rates)
National-, Voluntary DOD (Patient Safety Reporting DOD (Patient Safety Reporting System)
Regional-, reporting System) Any clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
Facility-level Any clinician-diagnosed or patient- ADEs
Spontaneous reported ADEs FDA (FAERS):
Reports FDA (FAERS): Any clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
Any clinician-diagnosed or patient- ADEs
reported ADEs VA (VA ADERS):
VA (VA ADERS): Any clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
Any clinician-diagnosed or patient- ADEs
reported ADEs
Regional-/ Administrative IHS (Resource and Patient DOD (Pharmacovigilance Defense Application
Facility-level claims and/or Management System [RPMS-EHR]) System):
ADE Incidence EHR data Adverse Reaction Tracking (ART) Outpatient clinic visits, ED visits,
(+/- Rates) System entry related to a diabetes hospitalizations using relevant ICD-9-CM
Quality agent codes and/or CPT codes
Improvement EHR entry in the Problem List of VA (Integrated Databases):
hypoglycemia ADE identified by ICD-9-CM codes, primary
hospitalizations, emergency department or
VA (Integrated Databases):
clinic visits, and laboratory values (blood
ADE identified by ICD-9-CM codes,
glucose, HbA1c). An algorithm has been
primary hospitalizations, emergency
developed and validated to identify
department or clinic visits, and
hypoglycemia in VA patients.
laboratory values (blood glucose,
HbA1c). An algorithm has been IHS Resource and Patient Management System
developed and validated to identify (RPMS-EHR)
hypoglycemia in VA patients. ART System entry related to a diabetes agent
EHR entry in the Problem List or purpose of
visit of hypoglycemia
*ICD-9-CM 962.3 refers to Poisoning by insulins and antidiabetes agents, and E932.3 refers to insulins and antidiabetic
agents causing adverse effects in therapeutic use.
**Currently, FDA Sentinel initiative covers more than 125 million lives; however, these do not constitute a nationally
representative sample.
***In 2015, MSPMS will be replaced by the Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS).
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; ART = adverse reaction tracking; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; D50 = 50
percent dextrose; ED = emergency department; EHR = electronic health record; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; ICD-9-CM =
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification; mg/dL = milligrams per deciliter; NHIS = National
Health Interview Survey

Federal partners should support use of standardized definitions of hypoglycemia and

reporting of hypoglycemia in national surveys to advance surveillance efforts.
Actions that can potentially advance surveillance strategies for ADEs from diabetes agents are
summarized in Figure 13. National surveillance using population-based sampling or administrative
claims data may be efficient ways of collecting nationally representative data on serious hypoglycemic
events. These studies can provide estimates of the national burden. For example, CDCs National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a cross-sectional household survey of noninstitutionalized civilians in the
United States, contains questions about diabetes status and treatment. NHIS may provide an
opportunity for increased surveillance of hypoglycemic events on a population health basis. Questions
related to the presence and frequency of hypoglycemic events could potentially be considered for
incorporation into such national health surveys.
However, reducing ADEs requires individual providers and patients to act at the point of care. Federal
Agencies that provide direct care to patients can go beyond retrospective approaches to implement
proactive clinical approaches that utilize electronic health records (EHRs) and telehealth for
identification and surveillance of patients who are at risk for hypoglycemia.

Figure 13. Actions That Can Potentially Advance Surveillance Strategies for Diabetes Agent ADEs
Actions That Can Potentially Advance Surveillance Strategies

for Diabetes Agent ADEs
Address gaps in standard surveillance definitions for hypoglycemic events.
Clearly define both severe/serious and mild hypoglycemic events.
When possible, confirm findings of surveillance data with medical record review to
minimize opportunities for bias or misclassification.
Assess the adequacy of diagnostic and procedural coding for identifying hypoglycemic
events.
Assess specificity, sensitivity, PPV, and NPV of ICD and CPT codes for capturing
hypoglycemic events.
Coordinate efforts across the Federal Government and the private sector to enhance
inpatient monitoring of hypoglycemic events.
- Refine AHRQ Common Formats utilized by Patient Safety Organizations to include
data on hypoglycemic events.
- Identify whether existing national patient safety reporting systems (e.g., CDCs
National Healthcare Safety Network) could be used to facilitate inpatient tracking
and monitoring of hypoglycemic events.
Improve availability and access to integrated EHR data with linked pharmacy,
laboratory, and outcomes (e.g., admissiondischarge) data at national and local levels.
Improve efforts to collect additional information on hypoglycemic events within the
ambulatory setting (e.g., events resulting in emergency department visits or
hospitalizations).
- Consider utilizing surveys such as the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS),
the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES), and the National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS) to collect population-based estimates of hypoglycemic
events.
International Classification of Diseases; MCBS = Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition
Survey; NHIS = National Health Interview Survey; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes and the ADA/American
Geriatric Society (AGS) guidelines, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of
Defense (VA/DOD) guidelines, all interpret the scientific evidence as supporting individualization of

target glycemic goals based on life expectancy, co-morbid conditions, social support, and personal
preference [39, 40, 41, 42]. The AGS, in the context of the American Board of Internal Medicine
Foundations Choosing Wisely Campaign, has indicated that the use of medications other than
metformin to lower HbA1c to <7.5 percent in most persons with type 2 diabetes aged 65 or older is not
warranted [43]. This recommendation is based on the potential of harms (relative to that of benefit)
noted when patients have major co-morbid conditions or limited life expectancy [43, 44]. Figure 14
identifies currently existing Federal resources that address diabetes management and that can
potentially be leveraged to advance hypoglycemia prevention.
Quality Strategy Priorities
AHRQ:
Oral Diabetes Medications for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: An UpdateProvides a systematic review of all
oral diabetes medications, including evidence about the risk of hypoglycemia
BOP:
Management of Diabetes Clinical Practice GuidelinesProvides recommendations for the medical
management of Federal inmates with diabetes
DOD/VA:
Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of DiabetesProvides structured framework to help
improve patient outcomes, along with evidence-based guidelines and identification of outcome measures
FDA:
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation StrategyMandatory risk management plans that use risk minimization
strategies beyond professional labeling to ensure that benefits of medications outweigh their risks
IHS:
Standards of Care and Clinical Practice Recommendations: Type 2 DiabetesProvides guidance to clinicians
and educators with regularly updated recommendations, useful clinical tools and resources, patient education
material and a bibliography
Diabetes Treatment AlgorithmsDeveloped to provide clinicians with a quick reference based on national
guidelines, these algorithms reflect a collaborative effort between Indian health system professionals. Cards
can be accessed by mobile devices and/or printed for use in the clinical setting.
Quick Guide CardsSummarize important elements of care, including the importance of individualized target
setting for HgA1c
Advancements in Diabetes SeminarsHour-long live virtual seminars that provide CME/CE credit and feature
updates on appropriate treatment for patients with diabetes including practical tools
NIH:
National Diabetes Information ClearinghouseInformation on diabetes blood tests

Quality Strategy Priorities (continued)
Resources for Patients and Family Engagement

ACL:
Community organizations offer various programs that have been or are currently supported in part by
Federal funds, such as
Stanford Diabetes Self-Management Program6-week program to help participants better manage their
diabetes, including information about methods to deal with symptoms of hypoglycemia
National Council on Aging Better Choices, Better Health-Diabetes6-week online workshop to learn self-
management techniques, including curriculum on hypoglycemia
HomeMedsSM Medication Management SystemMultidisciplinary collaborative providing patient
counseling, reassessment, and adjustment of medication regimens for older adults in various nonacute
health care settings (e.g., home care)
AHRQ:
Medicines for Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Research for AdultsSummary of research on benefits and
possible side effects of diabetes agents to guide patients in discussions with their health care provider
Premixed Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes: A Guide for AdultsGuide compares benefits, side effects, and costs
of a newer type of premixed insulin with other kinds of insulin and pills for diabetes
Methods for Delivering Insulin and Monitoring Blood Sugar: A Review of the Research for Children, Teens,
and Adults With DiabetesDiscusses what research says about different ways to measure blood sugar and
take insulin
FDA:
Medication Guides (available for a variety of diabetes agents, including sulfonylurea-thiazolidinedione
combination product)
NIH:
What I Need to Know About Diabetes MedicinesOnline resource which includes guidance on
hypoglycemia
HypoglycemiaResource defining hypoglycemia, potential causes, treatment, and prevention (available in
National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse)
National Diabetes Information ClearinghouseInformation on diabetes blood tests
NIH/CDC:
Know Your Blood Sugar NumbersResource on how to test blood glucose level (produced by National
Diabetes Education Program)
Resources for Communication and Coordination of Care

AHRQ:
Project REDIncludes a number of medication-related strategies (e.g., active medication reconciliation,
care providers)
NIH/CDC:
Helping the Child with Diabetes Succeed: A Guide for School PersonnelResources for school personnel
with guidance on preventing and treating hypoglycemia at school (produced by National Diabetes Education
Program)
Inpatient settings
Appropriate glycemic control in inpatient settings requires a careful balance in managing the risks
associated with both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Target values for glycemic control
recommended by the Federal sector and multiple private and public stakeholder agencies should be

individualized. Each patient would thus need an individual approach toward mitigating the risk of
hypoglycemia. Uncontrolled hyperglycemia has been associated with poor outcomes in a
dose/response relationship, and use of intensive insulin therapy has been associated with reductions in
mortality in epidemiological studies and high visibility single-site randomized trials in ventilated ICU
(mixed surgical and nonsurgical) patients [45]. However, these results were not replicated in a large,
multicenter trial (the NICE-SUGAR study), in which serious hypoglycemia was increased in the intensive
insulin therapy arm and associated with increased mortality [46]. Professional society-recommended
upper-level glycemic targets in the ICU setting range from 150 mg/dL (Society of Critical Care Medicine)
to 200 mg/dL (American College of Physicians). The strength of evidence for glycemic control in non-ICU
settings is of low quality [47].
Federal partners should facilitate the use of systems that enhance recognition and
documentation of risk factors that contribute to inpatient hypoglycemic events.
The risk for hypoglycemic events may be increased due to numerous hospital-, provider-, and patient-
related risk factors and actual events can result from iatrogenic factors, especially related to
administration of medications. There are a number of individual patient characteristics that may
increase an individuals likelihood of experiencing a hypoglycemic event, including low body mass index
(BMI), cachexia, age, and congestive heart failure. Iatrogenic factors include using insulin and/or oral
hypoglycemic agents too aggressively, inappropriately, or without sufficient followup in the hospital
setting. Hypoglycemic events also can result if there are additional changes in a patients drug regimen
that alter insulin resistance (e.g., treatment with corticosteroids) or the metabolism of hypoglycemic
agents [48, 49, 50].
The use of insulin and oral diabetes agents, failure to adjust diabetes regimens in response to decreases
in oral intake, and unexpected deviation from normal hospital routines have been identified as common
risk factors in iatrogenic hypoglycemia [50]. Unexpected interruption of tube feedings or other sources
of nutrition and failure to respond appropriately to an initial hypoglycemic event are also among the
most common, and potentially most preventable, sources of iatrogenic hypoglycemic events. Studies
have shown that more than 40 percent of patients who experience one iatrogenic episode go on to
suffer at least one additional distinct hypoglycemic event that is largely preventable [50]. It is critical
that clinical judgment, not metrics, guide medication administration and glycemic targets for individual
patients.

Effective prevention of inpatient diabetes agent adverse events requires

multidisciplinary coordination.
A systematic approach is essential to promoting the safe and appropriate use of insulin in inpatient
settings. Medication errors can occur at multiple stages in the medication process. Therefore,
information should be shared across all health care providers and shifts. This includes documentation of
all nutritional intake, coordination of meal time/blood glucose testing, as well as any changes in normal
routine (e.g., reduced dietary intake or use of parenteral nutrition). The use of an EHR, as well as the
use of order sets and medication protocols, can support templates for tracking this information. Clear
documentation of any initial event is important to support coordination across all inpatient health care
providers, as is the sharing of template order sets such as those in use by the VA [51]. For ICU patients
in the VA, this dashboard reports quarterly the proportion of patient days on a hypoglycemic agent with
any hypoglycemic event (glucose 45 mg/dL and/or 60 mg/dL) and the proportion of patients on
hypoglycemic agents with a mean glucose >180 mg/dL, as well as risk-adjusted outcomes [52, 53].
These efforts are supported by shared resources, including the VA/DOD guidelines, template order sets
to manage hyperglycemia and hypoglycemic events, references, a special section on reducing
hypoglycemic events, and other educational materials. Similarly, efforts to reduce inadvertent
interchanges between medications that are commonly mistaken for one another (e.g., U-500 and U-100
insulin) can enhance prevention efforts by ensuring that medications that may look alike or sound alike
are clearly labeled and stored separately [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55].
Efforts are underway to evaluate effectiveness of implementing specific strategies to

reduce the prevalence of hypoglycemic events in inpatient settings.
One CMS-funded effort, the Partnership for Patients (PfP) Initiative, is currently testing the scaling of
prevention strategies for hypoglycemic event prevention in inpatient settings. A multiphase approach
with the following elements was used with the aim of decreasing hypoglycemic events:
Adopting a basal/bolus insulin protocol
Instituting a nurse-driven protocol for hypoglycemia
Ensuring the coordination of mealtime blood glucose testing, insulin administration, and meals
Other opportunities for advancing diabetes agent ADE prevention strategies/tools in inpatient settings

Figure 15. Opportunities for Advancing Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified
by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings
Individualized target setting

- Acknowledgment of patient risk factors (e.g., BMI,
cachexia, age, CHF, advanced malignancy, renal or liver
disease)
- Understand iatrogenic factors (e.g., nutritional intake,
patient compliance, regimen change)
Educate patients on any self-management implications of
changes to insulin regimen using teach back method
Patient and Family Educate patients on use of products for treating low blood
Engagement glucose, including over-the-counter products [56]
Provide hypoglycemia diabetes patient education
materials
Understand patient adherence with medication and diet
regimen and daily barriers that patients encounter
Consider the use of a standardized process to assess
individual patient need for devices for self-administration
in the event of an urgent or emergent hypoglycemic event
[57]
Multidisciplinary coordination and collaborative health

care professional partnerships (including hospitalists,
endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians)
throughout the medication process [58, 59, 60, 61, 62]
Education of health care professionals on the importance
of effective communication and coordination of care
Engagement with pharmacists, nurses, dietitians, and
Effective other health care professionals at the time of discharge
Communication and Minimize fragmentation of medical care
Coordination of Care Support development of tools that facilitate
- Improved prescribing of diabetes agents to minimize
the potential for medication errors
- Improved identification of root causes of hypoglycemic
events
- Improved patient compliance to/adherence with
medication/diet and daily barriers that patients
encounter

by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings (continued)
Consider individual patient characteristics in selecting

diabetes agents and glycemic targets
Use protocols to
- Assess risk during initial evaluation
- Reassess risk periodically
Assess cause of prior events
Support development of standardized tools for insulin
administration (e.g., insulin infusion protocols)
Ensure consistency in order sets
Science-Driven Use standardized, evidence-based order sets (avoid free
text)
Prevention and Conduct root cause analysis of hypoglycemic events when
Treatment appropriate
Capture critical information associated with hypoglycemic
events at admission or discharge:
- Prior history of hypoglycemic episodes
- Past diabetes medication management
- Level of glycemic control
- Assessment of patients cognitive abilities, literacy
level, visual acuity, dexterity, cultural context, and
financial resources for acquiring outpatient diabetic
medications and supplies
Encourage multidisciplinary care coordination [31, 44]

Promotion of Best Consider individual patient circumstances (e.g., cognition,
Practices Within life expectancy, sedation) [31]
Communities Ensure professional supervision during any medication
changes
Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; CHF = congestive heart failure
Outpatient Settings
Because of the complexity of the patient population comprising those at highest risk of experiencing
hypoglycemic events (e.g., older persons), the FIW reviewed several conceptual models to help guide
the development of the strategic framework. Of the models reviewed, the most influential and
comprehensive is the Chronic Care Model, which uses a systematic approach to restructuring medical
care to create partnerships between health systems and communities [63, 64, 65]. To improve chronic
care, the model includes system requirements for health care organizations, community resources, self-
management support, delivery design, decision support, and clinical information.

Shared decisionmaking, which engages the patient, families, and other designated individuals in disease
management, is an essential element of ongoing care. In order to participate in decisions related to the
patients illness in the context of his or her belief systems and culture, he or she must have sufficient
information and must clearly understand it. Patients need to be both informed and engaged. As such,
health care provider education should emphasize cultural competency, health literacy/numeracy,
shared decisionmaking practices, and motivational interviewing [39, 63, 64, 66].
A key element of any strategy to reduce the risk of hypoglycemic events is recognizing the importance of
existing co-morbid conditions that may affect adherence and risk of medication side effects, as well as
physical function and quality of life. Type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes are chronic diseases.
Management for the broad categories of diabetes will not be the same for everyone because of the
differences in underlying etiology and the demographics of the affected populations, as well as the
length of time from when the patient was diagnosed with diabetes. Co-morbid conditions are more
common in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly as they age [65, 67, 68, 69]. According to the
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), most adults with diabetes have at least one co-morbid
chronic disease and as many as 40 percent have at least three [69, 70, 71, 72]. Finally, throughout the
aging process, individuals are at increased risk for co-morbid disease independent of diabetes [65, 67,
68, 69], which may complicate diabetes management and increase morbidity and mortality.
Self-management of hypoglycemia occurs almost exclusively in the ambulatory care setting.

Management of hypoglycemic events in the home, school, workplace, and long-term care settings may
reduce subsequent events that require emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Patient self-
management may be affected by co-morbidities. Impaired renal function can prolong the half-life of
insulin and alter sulfonylurea degradation, resulting in increased incidence of hypoglycemic events.
Cognitive impairment adversely affects patients ability to self-manage their diabetes and is associated
with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Depression may also pose significant barriers to
appropriate diabetes control by affecting the ability to maintain a healthy lifestyle, including exercise,
good dietary habits, and adherence to a prescribed regimen [73, 74].
Federal partners should facilitate prevention efforts that are based on a patient-
centered approach.
To date, outpatient prevention tools for hypoglycemic events have not explicitly recommended a
comprehensive assessment of chronic co-morbid conditions as major contributing risk factors for
hypoglycemia, in addition to social and educational factors. Use of a framework that identifies

contributing social determinants, as well as medical and mental health risk factors, can permit the
development of individualized approaches to glycemic targets, medication side effects (including but not
limited to hypoglycemia), and social and educational support.
Federal and private sector professional guidelines recommend educating patients, families, and
caregivers regarding the parameters for diabetes medications, including timing with meals and activities,
identifying blood glucose levels that require immediate provider notification, as well as blood glucose-
level patterns that require notification on a more routine basis [31, 39, 40, 66]. National and
international organizations such as The Joint Commission and the World Health Organization have
developed guidelines to prevent ADEs associated with the use of look-alike, sound-alike medications
[70, 71, 72]. Look-alike, sound-alike medications were identified as a National Patient Safety Goal
(NPSG) by The Joint Commission and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) in 2005. For
example, the NPSG identified that HumaLOG has been confused with HumaLIN. Organizations such as
the ADA, The Joint Commission, and the ISMP have identified a number of recommendations for the
care of older adults with diabetes to prevent hypoglycemic events [31, 44]. The National Diabetes
Educational Program, jointly led by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, has also developed resources specifically for children and teens with diabetes [75, 76].
The most recent private sector and Federal guidelines recommend individualized targets based on life
expectancy and the presence of chronic co-morbid conditions.
Federal partners should support strategies that incorporate shared decisionmaking in

diabetes agent medication management, where appropriate.
In clinical settings in which there is no single or ideal diagnostic treatment regimen, shared
decisionmaking is an important tool in guiding prescribing decisions. Several medical associations
endorse shared decisionmaking [39, 40]. For example, the VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guidelines for the
Management of Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care (2010) as well as the American Diabetes Association
and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) June 2012 joint position statement on
hyperglycemia treatment all specifically note the importance of shared decisionmaking with the patient
when choosing goals of therapy [39, 42]. Promoting shared decisionmaking is one of several
opportunities for advancing diabetes agent ADE prevention strategies/tools in outpatient settings; these

Figure 16. Opportunities for Advancing Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools as Identified
by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings
Medication adjustments in response to changes in

oral intake
Coordination of meal time and blood glucose testing
Care coordination across all health care professionals
Medication reconciliation of diabetes medications
Caution against use of sliding scale insulin in patients
Safer Care that may be at higher risk for hypoglycemia (e.g.,
older adults, those with dementia)
Encourage a multidisciplinary care approach, including
pharmacists, nurses, diabetes educators, dietitians
Incorporate data from patient glucometers into the
electronic health record to identify patients at risk
Tools to establish individual patient goals

Shared decisionmaking, including patient preferences
Teach-back method in which patient is asked to
explain the clinicians instructions in his/her own
words
Train health care professionals on how to address
cultural competency (literacy, language, cultural
acceptability)
Patient and Family Train health care professionals on how to address
Engagement health literacy [58, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83]
Awareness and education of patients/families on how
to treat low blood glucose, including availability of
products such as glucose tablets for home use [56]
Understand patient compliance/adherence to
medication and diet regimen and daily barriers
patient encounters
Explain risks of nocturnal hypoglycemia with patient
and caregivers
Provider training on effective use of decision aids

Education of health care professionals on the
importance of effective communication and
Effective coordination of care
Communication and Health care professionals should be encouraged to ask
Coordination of Care their patients if they experience any challenges with
diet and encourage dietitians to be part of this process
Enhanced medication reconciliation at the time of
hospital discharge [84]

Patient education
- Checking medication expiration date
- Identification of home blood glucose goals
- Detection and treatment of adverse events
- Importance of consistent eating patterns
- Guidance on sick day management
- Information on accuracy of self-monitoring
equipment
by the National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings (continued)
Development and enhancement of decision aids [85]

Science-Driven Provider coordination of any changes in medication
Prevention and Addressing inaccuracy of self-monitoring of blood
Treatment glucose with patients and caregivers [86, 87, 88, 89]**
Multidisciplinary care coordination [39, 40, 41, 51]

Promotion of Best Consideration of individual patient circumstances
(e.g., cognition, life expectancy, sedation) [39, 40, 41,
Practices Within 51]
Communities Professional supervision during any medication
changes
* Section 3506 of the Affordable Care Act encourages greater use of shared decisionmaking in health care and funds an
autonomous program that would develop standards for and certify patient decision aids.
** The acceptable accuracy of these devices permitted by FDA is 15 mg/dL of the results of the reference measurement at
glucose concentrations <75 mg/dL or 20 percent at glucose concentrations >75 mg/dL [89]. International Standards
Organization guideline permits 15 mg/dL for values <75 mg/dl. Accuracy varies among meters [86, 87, 88], and additional
error can be introduced by user parameters. These issues have recently been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration
[89].
Federal partners should advance efforts to identify the role care transitions play in
contributing to hypoglycemic events.
Medication errors and ADEs have been linked to poor communication of instructions to the patient at
the time of discharge [58, 59, 60, 61, 62]. This is particularly true for insulin regimens, which are
inherently more complex to manage and administer than other types of chronic disease medications
[90]. Because the day of discharge is not always conducive to retention of verbal instructions [58, 59,
60, 61, 62], clear written instructions can provide a reference for patients and their outpatient
providers, and a format for medication reconciliation between inpatient and outpatient settings. In one
study, an insulin-specific discharge instruction form provided greater clarity and more consistent
directions for insulin dosing and self-testing of blood glucose (BG), in comparison with a generic hospital
discharge form [58, 59, 60, 61, 62].

To assist with medication reconciliation during the transfer from inpatient to outpatient settings and to
avoid postdischarge adverse events/complications that can result in readmission, AHRQs Medications
At Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) toolkit for medication reconciliation is a tool that can
potentially be used to help facilitate medication reconciliation during transitions of care [84].
The ADA recommends a team approach to transitions to outpatient care that includes physicians,
nurses, pharmacists, medical assistants, dietitians, case managers, and social workers. ADA
recommends that the transition to outpatient care begin with a hospital admission assessment that
obtains
Prior history of diabetes or hyperglycemia, its management, and the level of glycemic control
Early assessment of a patients cognitive abilities, literacy level, visual acuity, dexterity, cultural
context, and financial resources for acquiring outpatient diabetic supplies, which allows
sufficient time to prepare the patient for discharge [31, 44]
Other recommendations suggest that the following areas be reviewed and addressed before the patient
is discharged from the hospital [40, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62]:
Level of understanding related to his/her diagnosis of diabetes
Self-monitoring of BG and explanation of home BG goals
Definition, recognition, treatment, and prevention of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia
Identification of health care provider who will be responsible for diabetes care after discharge
Information on consistent eating patterns
Instructions on when and how to take BG-lowering medications, including administration of

insulin
Sick day management
Proper use and disposal of needles and syringes
The Incentives and Oversight Opportunities section (Section 4) of the ADE Action Plan provides an
overview of the existing Federal incentives and oversight resources that may be leveraged to help ADE

incidence overall. Figure 17, and the discussion that follows, outline incentives and oversight
opportunities specific to the safe management of diabetes agents.
Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention
Actions That Can Potentially Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for
Preventing Diabetes Agent ADEs
Update national health care quality reporting measures to better reflect more recent
clinical guidelines regarding the need to individualize hypoglycemic risk targets.
Expand nationally recognized health care quality reporting measures to include concepts
related to multidisciplinary, systematic, and coordinated models of care for managing
inpatient glycemic targets.
Adopt health care quality reporting measures that reflect the latest advances in
measurement science.
Address payment/coverage barriers to uptake of evidence-based, high-quality ADE
prevention strategies, such as use of patient engagement and health literacy principles.
Expand Federal and industry health care quality reporting measures that reflect the
need for individualization of glycemic targets that incorporate co-morbid conditions.
Explore utility, feasibility, and validity of developing nationally recognized health care
quality measures related to hypoglycemic events resulting in emergency department
visits or hospitalizations from ambulatory care or community living settings.
Improve EHR standards and tools to better identify patients at high risk for
hypoglycemia.
Transitions of Care/Coordinated Care
Address barriers to integrated communication and coordination across health care
settings and providers.
Abbreviations: ADE= adverse drug event; EHR = electronic health record
The nationally endorsed quality measures that relate to the management of diabetes
should be revisited to reflect changes in medical science and expanded to include
measures of hypoglycemic events.
The National Quality Forum has endorsed a number of measures related to the management of
diabetes. However, not all these measures reflect the latest evidence base related to hypoglycemia
risks, and they have not yet been revisited to reflect the newest guidelines relevant to glycemic control
from the ADA, VA/DOD, and AGS. Specifically, they do not exclude patients for whom HbA1c <8 percent
would be inappropriate according to new guidelines, or stratify by medications (such as insulin). Neither
do they address potential overtreatment in high-risk groups. Rates of hospital admissions for

hypoglycemia are not addressed as a preventable hospitalization. Table 9 below outlines the measures
related to diabetes care that are currently nationally recognized and in use by a number of Federal
programs, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Quality Reporting System.
Table 9. National Quality Forum (NQF)Endorsed Health Care Quality Measures Specific to Diabetes
Medication Management and Hospital Admissions*
Measure ID Measure Measure Description Steward
NQF 0731 Comprehensive Diabetes This measure assesses the number of patients NCQA
Care** (1875 years) who had each of the following:
Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing
HbA1c poor control (>9%)
HbA1c control (< 8%)
HbA1c control (<7%) for subset of patients
<65 years of age with exclusions for certain
co-morbid conditions
Eye exam performed
LDL-C screening
LDL-C control (<100 mg/dL)
Medical attention for nephropathy
BP control (<140/90 mmHg)
Smoking status & cessation advice
NQF 0272 Diabetes Short-Term The number of discharges for diabetes short- AHRQ***
Complications Admission term complications per 100,000 population over
Rate the past year
NQF 0060 Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) The percentage of pediatric patients with NCQA
testing for pediatrics diabetes who received an HbA1c test
NQF 1789 Hospital-Wide All-Cause The measure estimates the hospital-level, risk- CMS
Unplanned Readmission standardized rate of unplanned, all-cause
Measure readmission after admission for any eligible
condition (including diabetes) within 30 days of
hospital discharge
*Note: Measures summarized in this table are specific to diabetes medication management and diabetes-related hospital
admissions or readmissions. Measures related to ensuring proper disease state management of diabetes that are not
associated with risk of hypoglycemia are not shown here.
** NQF 0731 assesses comprehensive diabetes care that includes elements not specific to monitoring the risk of hypoglycemia.
*** Does not include admissions for hypoglycemia.
Abbreviations: HbA1c= hemoglobin A1c

The FIWs for Diabetes Agent ADEs proposed EHR (Stage 3) Meaningful Use electronic
clinical quality measures for EHRs, which can potentially advance diabetes agent ADE
prevention.
The FIW for Diabetes Agent ADEs discussed and identified various health care quality measures specific
to hypoglycemic agent safety that were amenable for incorporation into EHR-based quality measure
strategies. One measure concept that is being considered is a measure based on administrative claims
data (measure related to emergency department visits or hospitalizations due to hypoglycemia). The
FIW recommended these measures (Table 10) to the Quality Measures Workgroup of the Health
Information Technology Policy Committee, which is convened by the HHS Office of the National
Coordinator (ONC) for consideration as possible candidate measures for Stage 3 EHR MU requirements
[91]. After initial recommendation, measures under consideration are submitted to CMS for further
reviews, development, and testing. Final measure acceptance is dependent on rigorous and complete
internal and external public reviews.
Table 10. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) Meaningful Use Requirements That Can
Workgroup for ADEs
Clinical Quality Measure Blank
ConceptsEligible Providers
1. Percentage of patients on Assesses patients aged 65 and older with HbA1c <7% on sulfonylurea or
sulfonylurea/insulin insulin therapy with one of the following chronic co-morbidities:
therapy with out-of-range Cognitive impairment/dementia
HbA1c Advanced microvascular complications
Limited life expectancy
Current substance use
Rationale Providers should be alerted when patients are at high risk for hypoglycemia.
Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Blank
Rule ConceptsEligible Providers
2. Alert to potential risk for Clinical reminder to identify patients at high risk for hypoglycemic event
hypoglycemic events
Rationale Provider should be notified when a patient is high risk and either take action
or comment on why no action was taken.
3. Shared decisionmaking on Clinical guidance that glycemic target should be discussed and set through
HbA1c glycemic goals dialogue between patient and provider and mutually agreed-on target range
incorporated into medical record
Rationale HbA1c glycemic goal should be entered in a field that can record use of
shared decisionmaking to identify target.


4. Patient-Centered Action Plan Clinical documentation of steps to be taken once patient is identified as high
risk for hypoglycemic event
Rationale Captures activities undertaken to acknowledge and reduce risk.
5. Flowsheet Flowsheet with certain elements should be presented on a single page to the
physician.
Rationale Clinician can view appropriate considerations and recommended next steps
for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.
Patient List
Providers (Outpatient Settings)
6. Stratified patient list Electronically generate patient list stratified by HbA1c and co-morbidities.
Rationale Allow clinician to stratify individuals currently receiving hypoglycemic events
agents therapy by their HbA1c value and certain co-morbidities that increase
their risk for hypoglycemia.
Table 10. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) Meaningful Use Requirements that Can
Workgroup for ADEs (continued)

Clinical Quality Measure
ConceptsEligible Hospitals
(Inpatient Settings)
7. Hypoglycemic events, serious Total number of hypoglycemic events, divided by the number of patients
administered a diabetes agent
Rationale Calculates percent of hypoglycemic events for all inpatients receiving
diabetes agents.
8. Hyperglycemia Total number of hyperglycemic hospital days (defined as elevated glucose
level), divided by all individuals with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus who
were administered antidiabetic agents (except metformin)
Rationale Calculates percent of hyperglycemic events for all inpatients receiving
diabetes agents.
Serves as balancing measure to hypoglycemia measure.
9. Hypoglycemia, mild Total number of days in which any hypoglycemic event (<70 mg/dL)
reported, divided by total number of hospital days for patients receiving a
diabetes agent
Rationale Currently no system to effectively track and monitor episodes of
hypoglycemia that do not result in need for third-party assistance.
10. Recurrent Hypoglycemia Patients suffering at least one recurrent hypoglycemic event on a
subsequent hospital day during the same hospital stay
Rationale Patients suffering at least one recurrent hypoglycemic event on a
subsequent hospital day during the same hospital stay.
EHR Functionality/Usability
Hospitals (Inpatient Settings)
11. Documentation of etiology of Total number of hypoglycemic events, divided by all patients administered a
hypoglycemic event diabetes agent

Rationale Captures etiology and actions to take (checklist) to prevent future events
12. Alert to potential risk for Clinical reminder and documentation of risk mitigation steps taken
hypoglycemic events (checklist) when patient has experienced two or more blood glucose values
of
<70 mg/dL
Rationale When there is a patient with repeated blood glucose values of <70 mg/dL,
provider should be alerted for potential risk.
Provider should be provided list of options to prevent future episodes or
document why no action taken.

Table 10. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) Meaningful Use Requirements that Can
Potentially Advance Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention as Proposed by the Federal Interagency
Workgroup for ADEs (continued)

EHR Functionality/Usability
RecommendationDiabetes
Agents Health Literacy/Numeracy
(Inpatient & Outpatient Settings)
13. Health literacy Provision of patient education materials on diabetes medications that follow
health literacy principles
Rationale Patients need educational materials that are easy to comprehend when
prescribed a diabetes agent.
Materials should follow health literacy principles.
Materials should be available in patients native language.
Provider should ensure that the patient can understand and follow the
materials.
14. Health numeracy Test patients ability to calculate numeric values to ensure proper HbA1c
levels.
Rationale Critical to persons with diabetes self-management to avert potential
harms
Important when patient experiences changes in diet, exercise, or
improper calculation of medication dose
Abbreviations: HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; mg/dL = milligrams per deciliter
As ADE prevention efforts evolve, key research opportunities have the potential to further advance the
field of diabetes agent safety. These opportunities lie in areas such as health care provider education,
patient education, surveillance, and incentives and oversight, and are summarized below, in Figure 18.

Advance Research Strategies for Diabetes Agent ADE Prevention

Diabetes Agent Safety
Provider Education (AHRQ, CDC, FDA, publicprivate partnerships)
Research on clinician decisionmaking and behavior related to prescribing and managing of
diabetes agents (e.g., risk-benefit considerations, patient-centered prescribing, acceptance
of principles of individualized care)
Research on provider knowledge of HbA1c and point-of-care HbA1c testing, glucometer
accuracy
Patient/Caregiver/Family Education (AHRQ, CDC, FDA, NIH, publicprivate partnerships)

Research on the quality and impact of educational material for prevention of hypoglycemic
events and other diabetes-related patient outcomes, and impact of individualizing glycemic
targets
Research on the quality and impact of health literacy and numeracy on the prevention of
hypoglycemic events and other diabetes-related clinical outcomes
Research the role of telephonic management of diabetes for certain patient populations
for whom this modality may be appropriate
Surveillance and Prevention (AHRQ, CDC, FDA, publicprivate sector collaborations)

Identify rates of serious hypoglycemic events in ambulatory care settings stratified by risk
factors such as education level, health literacy, age, and co-morbid conditions.
Identify how currently existing ADE prevention tools utilized during care transitions affect
hypoglycemic events.
Research the impact of co-morbid conditions (e.g., cognitive function) on hypoglycemic
risks.
Identify how EHRs and related tools (e.g., clinical decision support) could be leveraged to
facilitate improved monitoring and prevention of hypoglycemic events.
Improve integration of EHR data with pharmacy data to facilitate better identification of
patients with diabetes and hypoglycemic events.
Enhance data on rates of hypoglycemia and risk factors in long-term care settings.
Evaluate how EHR-based medication management interventions affect patient outcomes.
Evaluate impact of new methods of glucose monitoring (e.g., continuous glucose
monitors).
Further evaluate impact of hypoglycemic events on quality of life-related metrics.
Identify potential opportunities for improvements in insulin packaging and evaluate impact
of packaging improvements on the prevention of insulin medication errors or ADEs.

References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet, 2011. Accessed April
7, 2014. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf
2. Adverse Drug Events: The magnitude of health risk is uncertain because of limited incidence
data. GAO/HEHS-00-21. Available from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/228642.pdf.
Accessed May 6, 2013.
3. Cox DJ, Gonder-Frederick L, Ritterband L, Clarke W, Kovatchev BP. Prediction of severe
hypoglycemic events. Diabetes Care 2007; 30:1370137.
4. Holstein A, Patzer OM, Machalke K, Holstein JD, Stumvoll M, Kovacs P. Substantial increase in
incidence of severe hypoglycemic events between 1997-2000 and 2007-2010: a German
longitudinal population-based study. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35(5):972-975.
5. Bonds DE, Miller ME, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Byington RP, Cutler JA, et al. The association
between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective
epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010; 340:b4909.
6. Warshaw G. Introduction: advances and challenges in care of older people with chronic illness.
Generation. 2006; 30:5-10.
7. Punthakee Z, Miller ME, Launer LJ, Williamson JD, Lazar RM, Cukierman-Yaffee T, et al.; ACCORD
Group of Investigators; ACCORD-MIND Investigators. Poor cognitive function and risk of severe
hypoglycemic events in type 2 diabetes: post hoc epidemiologic analysis of the ACCORD trial.
Diabetes Care. 2012; 35(4): 787-93.
8. Miller ME, Bonds DE, Gerstein HC, Seaquist ER, Bergenstal RM, Calles-Escandon J, et al.; ACCORD
Investigators. The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and
glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc
epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ. 2010; 340: b5444.
9. De Galan BE, Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Anderson C, Dufouil C, Pillai A, et al.; ADVANCE
Collaborative Group. Cognitive function and risks of cardiovascular disease and hypoglycaemia
in patients with type 2 diabetes: the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and
Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial. Diabetologia. 2009; 52(11):
2328-36.
10. Bonds DE, Miller ME, Dudl J, Feinglos M, Ismail-Beigi F, Malozowski S, et al. Severe
hypoglycemic events symptoms, antecedent behaviors, immediate consequences and
association with glycemia medication usage: Secondary analysis of the ACCORD clinical trial
data. BMC Endocr Disord. 2012; 12: 5.
11. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD, et al; VADT Investigators.
Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med.
2009; 360(2):129-139.

12. Lipska KJ, Warton EM, Huang ES, Moffet HH, Inzucchi SE, Krumholz HM, et al. HbA1c and risk of
severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes and Aging Study. Diabetes Care. 2013;
36(11):3535-42.
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG). Adverse
events in hospitals: national incidence among Medicare beneficiaries. Washington, DC: 2010
November. Report No.OEI-06-09-00090.
14. Cook CB, Kongable GL, Potter DJ, Abad VJ, Leija DE, Anderson M. Inpatient glucose control: a
glycemic survey of 126 U.S. hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(9):E7-E14.
15. Nirantharakumar K, Marshall T, Hodson J, Narendran P, Deeks J, Coleman JJ, et al. Hypoglycemia
in non-diabetic in-patients: clinical or criminal?. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e40384.
16. Wexler DJ, Meigs JB, Cagliero E, Nathan DM, Grant RW. Prevalence of hyper- and hypoglycemia
among inpatients with diabetes: a national survey of 44 U.S. hospitals. Diabetes Care. 2007;
30(2):367-9.
17. Boord JB, Greevy RA, Braithwaite SS, Arnold PC, Selig PM, Brake H, et al. Evaluation of hospital
glycemic control at US academic medical centers. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(1):35-44.
18. Matheny ME, Shubina M, Kimmel ZM, Pendergrass ML, Turchin A. Treatment intensification and
blood glucose control among hospitalized diabetic patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):184-
9.
19. Turchin A, Matheny ME, Shubina M, Scanlon JV, Greenwood B, Pendergrass ML. Hypoglycemia
and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes hospitalized in the general ward. Diabetes Care.
2009;32(7):1153-7.
20. Classen D, Jaser L, Budnitz D. Adverse drug events among hospitalized Medicare patients:
epidemiology and national estimates from a new approach to surveillance. Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 2010;36(1):12.
21. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. ISMPs list of high-alert medications. Available from:
http://www.ismp.org/tools/highalertmedicationLists.asp. Accessed February 22, 2013.
22. Lewis AW, Bolton N, Mcnulty S. Reducing inappropriate abbreviations and insulin prescribing
errors through education. Diabet Med. 2010;27(1):125-6.
23. Cousins D, Rosario C, Scarpello J. Insulin, hospitals and harm: a review of patient safety
incidents reported to the National Patient Safety Agency. Clin Med. 2011;11(1):28-30.
24. Hellman R. A systems approach to reducing errors in insulin therapy in the inpatient setting.
Endocr Pract. 2004;10 Suppl 2:100-8.
25. Deal EN, Liu A, Wise LL, Honick KA, Tobin GS. Inpatient insulin orders: are patients getting what
is prescribed? J Hosp Med. 2011;6:526-9.
26. Cobaugh DJ, Maynard G, Cooper L, Kienle PC, Vigersky R, Childers D, et al. Enhancing Insulin-Use
Safety in Hospitals: Practical Recommendations from an American Society of Healthsystems

Pharmacists (ASHP) Foundation Expert Consensus Panel. Amer Society Health-Syst Pharm.
2013;70:e18-27.
27. Budnitz D, Lovegrove M, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug
events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2002-2012.
28. Lipska KJ, Ross JS, Wang Y, Inzucchi SE, Minges K, Karter AJ, et al. National trends in hospital
admissions for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemic events among medicare beneficiaries, 1999-
2010. American Diabetes Association. 2013;Abstract 274-OR.
29. Sarkar U, Lopez A, Maseli J, Gonzales R. Adverse drug events in U.S. adult ambulatory medical
care. Health Services Research, 2011;46(5):1517-1533.
30. Sarkar U, Karter A, Moffet H, Adler N, Schillinger D. Hypoglycemic events is more common
among type 2 diabetes patients with limited health literacy: the Diabetes Study of Northern
California (DISTANCE). J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):962-968.
31. Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B, Cryer P, Dagogo-Jack S, Fish L, et al. Hypoglycemia and
diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine
Society. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(5):1384-95.
32. Cryer PE. Hypoglycemia in Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Prevalence and Prevention. Table 1.1,
page 9. American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, Virginia, 2009.
33. Green AJ, Fox KM, Grandy S; SHIELD Study Group. Self-reported hypoglycemic events and
impact on quality of life and depression among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes
Res Clin Pract. 2012;96:313-318.
34. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS.gov research, statistics, data & systems.
Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Computer-Data-
and-Systems/Minimum-Data-Set-3-0-Public-Reports/Minimum-Data-Set-3-0-Frequency-
Report.html.
35. Chelliah A, Burge MR. Hypoglycaemia in elderly patients with diabetes mellitus: causes and
strategies for prevention. Drugs Aging. 2004;21(8):511-30.
36. Abdelhafiz AH, Sinclair AJ. Hypoglycaemia in residential care homes. Br J Gen Pract.
2009;59(558):49-50.
37. Desouza CV, Bolli GB, Fonseca V. Hypoglycemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular events. Diabetes
Care. 2010;33(6):1389-94.
38. Ginde AA, Blanc PG, Lieberman RM, Camargo CA. Validation of ICD-9-CM coding algorithm for
improved identification of hypoglycemia visits. BMC Endocrinology Disorders. 2008;8:4.
39. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of
hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the
American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes
(EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1364-79.

40. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association Consensus
Statement on Inpatient Glycemic Control. Endocr Pract. 2009;15:117.
41. Lee SJ, Boscardin WJ, Stijacic cenzer I, Huang ES, Rice-trumble K, Eng C. The risks and benefits of
implementing glycemic control guidelines in frail older adults with diabetes mellitus. J Am
Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(4):666-72.
42. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense, 2010 Clinical Practice
Guidelines: Management of Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care. Available from:
http://www.healthquality.va.gov/diabetes/.
43. The American Geriatrics Society. Choosing Wisely: Five Things Physicians and Patients Should
Question: An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation. Available from:
http://www.americangeriatrics.org/health_care_professionals/clinical_practice/clinical_guidelin
es_ recommendations/choosingwisely. Accessed on August 6, 2013.
44. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2009. Diabetes Care.
2009;32 Suppl 1:S13-61.
45. Van den Berghe G, Wilmer A, Hermans G, Meersseman W, Wouters PJ, Milants I, et al.
Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(5):449-61.
46. Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill
patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-97.
47. American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians Issues Guideline for Use of
Intensive Insulin Therapy for Management of Glycemic Control in Hospitalized Patients.
Available from: http://www.acponline.org/pressroom/insulin.htm.
48. Michota F, Braithwaite SS. Avoiding complications in the hospitalized patient: the case for tight
glycemic control. J Hosp Med. 2007;2 Suppl 1:1-4.
49. Braithwaite SS, Buie MM, Thompson CL, Baldwin DF, Oertel MD, Robertson BA, et al. Hospital
hypoglycemia: not only treatment but also prevention. Endocr Pract. 2004;10 Suppl 2:89-99.
50. Maynard GA, Huynh MP, Renvall M. Iatrogenic inpatient hypoglycemia: risk factors, treatment,
and prevention: analysis of current practice at an academic medical center with implications for
improvement efforts. Diabetes Spectrum. 2008;21(4):241-247.
51. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines. Available
from: http://www.healthquality.va.gov/.
52. Render ML, Freyberg RW, Hasselbeck R, Hofer TP, Sales AE, Deddens J, et al. Infrastructure for
quality transformation: measurement and reporting in Veterans Administration intensive care
units. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(6):498-507.
53. Falciglia M, Freyberg RW, Almenoff PL, D'alessio DA, Render ML. Hyperglycemia-related
mortality in critically ill patients varies with admission diagnosis. Crit Care Med.
2009;37(12):3001-9.

54. Goldberg PA, Bozzo JE, Thomas PG, Mesmer MM, Sakharova OV, Radford MJ, et al.
"Glucometrics"--assessing the quality of inpatient glucose management. Diabetes Technol Ther.
2006;8(5):560-9.
55. Wiener RS, Wiener DC, Larson RJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults:
a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:933-4.
56. Diabetes Forecast: The Healthy Living Magazine. Blood Glucose & Medications. Available from:
http://www.diabetesforecast.org/landing-pages/lp-blood-glucose-and-medications.html
57. American Diabetes Association. Hypoglycemia (Low blood glucose). Available from:
http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/treatment-and-care/blood-glucose-
control/hypoglycemia-low-blood.html.
58. Kripalani S, Roumie CL, Dalal AK, Cawthon C, Businger A, Eden SK, et al. Effect of a pharmacist
intervention on clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge: a randomized
trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):1-10.
59. Kripalani S, Jackson AT, Schnipper JL, Coleman EA. Promoting effective transitions of care at
hospital discharge: a review of key issues for hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2007; 2:314323.
60. Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse
events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:161167.
61. Large BE. Providing timely discharge counseling. Am J Health Syst Pharm.
1999;56(11):1074,1076-7.
62. Lauster CD, Gibson JM, Dinella JV, Dinardo M, Korytkowski MT, Donihi AC. Implementation of
standardized instructions for insulin at hospital discharge. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(8):E41-2.
63. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A. Improving chronic illness
care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(6):64-78.
64. Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness?
Eff Clin Pract. 1998;1(1):2-4.
65. Piette JD. The impact of comorbid chronic conditions on diabetes care. Diabetes Care.
2006;29(3):725-731.
66. Lee EO, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med.
2013;368(1):6-8.
67. Druss BG, Marcus SC, Olfson M, Tanielian T, Elinson L, Pincus HA. Comparing the national
economic burden of five chronic conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20:233241.
68. Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple
chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(20):2269-76.
69. Maddigan SL, Feeny DH, Johnson JA. Health-related quality of life deficits associated with
diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Qual Life Res.
2005;14:13111320.

70. The Joint Commission. Look-alike/sound-alike drug list. Available from:

http://www.jointcommission.org/LASA.
71. WHO Collaborating Centre for Patient Safety Solutions. Look-Alike, Sound-Alike Medication
Names. Patient Safety Solutions. 2007;1(1). Available from:
http://www.who.int/patientsafety/solutions/patientsafety/PS-Solution1.pdf.
72. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. ISMPs List of Confused Drug Names. Available from:
http://www.ismp.org/Tools/confuseddrugnames.pdf.
73. Santiago JV. Nocturnal hypoglycemic events in children with diabetes: an important problem
revisited. J Pediatr. 1997;131:24.
74. Standards for Outcomes Measurement of Diabetes Self-Management Education. The Diabetes
Educator. 2003;29(5):804-816.
75. National Diabetes Education Program. Teens. Available from: http://ndep.nih.gov/teens/.
76. National Diabetes Education Program. Diabetes Resources for Schools and Youth. Available
from: http://ndep.nih.gov/hcp-businesses-and-schools/Schools.aspx.
77. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Topic: Health Literacy. Available from:
http://www.ahrq.gov/health-care-information/topics/topic-health-literacy.html.
78. Morris NS, Maclean CD, Littenberg B. Literacy and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study in
1002 adults with diabetes. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:49.
79. Wolf MS, Williams MV, Parker RM, Parikh NS, Nowlan AW, Baker DW. Patients' shame and
attitudes toward discussing the results of literacy screening. J Health Commun. 2007;12(8):721-
32.
80. Cavanaugh K, Wallston KA, Gebretsadik T, Shintani A, Huizinga MM, Davis D et al. Addressing
literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials. Diabetes
Care. 2009;32(12):2149-55.
81. Van Scoyoc EE, DeWalt DA. Interventions to improve diabetes outcomes for people with low
literacy and numeracy: a systematic literature review. Diabetes Spectrum. 2010;23(4):228-237.
82. Schillinger D, Piette J, Grumbach K, Wang F, Wilson C, Daher C et al. Closing the loop: physician
communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med.
2003;163(1):83-90.
83. Hawthorne K, Robles Y, Cannings-john R, Edwards AG. Culturally appropriate health education
for Type 2 diabetes in ethnic minority groups: a systematic and narrative review of randomized
controlled trials. Diabet Med. 2010;27(6):613-23.
84. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medications at Transitions and Clinical Handoffs
(MATCH) Toolkit for Medication Reconciliation. Available from:
http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patient-safety-
resources/resources/match/

85. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Shared Decision Making with the Patient with
Diabetes. Available from:
http://www.healthquality.va.gov/diabetes/cpgSDMDMPOCKETFinalPRESS022513.pdf.
86. Ginsberg BH. Factors affecting blood glucose monitoring: sources of errors in measurement. J
Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(4):903-13.
87. Freckmann G, Schmid C, Baumstark A, Pleus S, Link M, Haug C. System accuracy evaluation of 43
blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO
15197. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012; 6(5):1060-75.
88. Rebel A, Rice MA, Fahy BG. Accuracy of point-of-care glucose measurements. J Diabetes Sci
Technol. 2012; 6(2):396-411.
89. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Evaluation of Point of care Blood glucose Meters. Available
from:
http://www.whitehatcom.com/POCWebMtgs/Slides/FDA_Evaluation_of_Blood_Glucose_Meter
s_D_Johnson_Lyles.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2013.
90. Pogach LM, Rajan M, Maney M, Tseng CL, Aron DC. Hidden Complexities in Assessment of
Glycemic Outcomes Are quality rankings aligned with treatment?. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33(10):
2133-2139.
91. HealthIT.gov. Policy: Quality Measures Workgroup. Available from:
http://www.healthit.gov/facas/calendar/2013/06/03/policy-quality-measures-workgroups.

SECTION
Opioids
7
Prescription opioids are commonly used to treat acute and malignant pain, and, over the last decade,
have increasingly been used in the management of chronic pain. Acute and chronic pain affect many
Americans every year. Chronic pain alone is reported by more than 100 million Americans annually,
with pain affecting more Americans than diabetes, heart disease, and cancer combined [1]. The annual
costs of chronic pain, including medical costs of pain care and the economic costs related to disability
days, lost wages, and lost productivity, range from $560 billion to $635 billion (in 2010 dollars) [1].
Although opioids are an essential tool for the treatment and management of acute, postoperative, and
procedural pain, as well as for chronic pain related to cancer in the palliative care setting [1], use of
opioids for chronic pain is more controversial because of the limited evidence surrounding the safety
and efficacy of long-term opioid use for chronic pain [2]. Nevertheless, clinical practice guidelines
recommend judicious use of opioids in appropriately selected and monitored patients [3].
The use of opioids has increased dramatically over the last decade. Between 1999 and 2010, the
number of prescription opioids dispensed roughly doubled and the sales rate of prescription opioids (in
kg/10,000 population) increased fourfold [4], with an estimated 201.5 million opioid prescriptions
dispensed in 2009 [5]. In 2009, the prescription opioid hydrocodone was the single most commonly
prescribed medication in the United States, and opioid analgesics were the third most commonly
prescribed class of medications overall, leading the United States to spend approximately $8.4 billion on
opioids in 2010 [6]. This increased use of opioids has come with unintended and serious health and
social consequences. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of long-term use of opioids and it is
not clear that the dramatic increase in the use of opioids has led to improved treatment of pain overall,
especially of chronic pain [7].

Section 7 | Opioids
Opioids cause a number of ADEs that affect patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. These
ADEs are detrimental to the health and quality of life of patients [8]. Opioid ADEs include oversedation
and respiratory depression; gastrointestinal adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation;
opioid-induced hyperalgesia; pruritus; and immunological and hormonal dysfunction [9]. All these ADEs
were considered by the Federal Interagency Workgroup (FIW) for Opioid ADEs as important possible
targets of the ADE Action Plan; however, the FIW determined that addressing ADEs related to
unintentional opioid overdoses (i.e., oversedation, respiratory depression) were the highest priority
because of the associated mortality and morbidity. Opioid overdoses constitute a tremendous public
health burden that is potentially amenable to measurable prevention efforts, and a coordinated action
plan could aid in prevention.
Prescription opioidrelated deaths are considered to be one of the Nations leading

preventable public health problems.
Opioid overdose is a significant cause of drug-related injury and an important cause of adverse drug
events. Opioids are central to the ADE Action Plan because they are a common cause of ADEs [10] and
the leading cause of pharmaceutical overdose deaths [11]. By 2010, the number of prescription opioid
overdose deaths had increased for the 11th straight year to 16,651 deaths [10], which exceeds the
number of overdose deaths involving heroin and cocaine combined [10], and represents a quadrupling
of the approximately 4,000 prescription opioid-related deaths reported in 1999 [10]. Moreover, the
number of emergency department (ED) visits related to opioid misuse and abuse more than doubled
from 2004 to more than 420,000 emergency department visits in 2011 [12]. Prescription opioid abuse is
estimated to result in more than $72 billion in health care-related costs each year [13].
Access to safe and effective pain care remains an important problem in the United
States; efforts to minimize the burden of harms from opioids should be implemented in
parallel with efforts to ensure patients suffering from pain receive the most effective and
safest treatment available.
The Institute of Medicine report Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention,
Care, Education, and Research outlines the challenges faced by Americans affected by pain [1]. The
Opioids Section of the ADE Action Plan is informed, in part, by the findings and recommendations of this
seminal report. All recommendations in the ADE Action Plan should be taken in the context of
improving overall patient care through providing the safest and most effective, evidence-based pain
care. In pain care, treatment decisions require that the potential benefits of opioid analgesia be

Section 7 | Opioids
weighed against the potential safety risks of opioid treatment. Therefore, these recommendations
recognize the importance of the clinicians judgment in the context of patient-centered care.
Because the dramatic increase in the use of opioids over the past decades is largely attributed to use for
chronic pain, this sections recommendations for safer outpatient opioid treatment will focus on long-
term opioids used for chronic pain. However, safe opioid prescribing is needed in all settings, including
acute, postoperative, and periprocedural situations.
Distinguishing overdoses that occur during the normal course of care from
misuse/abuse will be important in efforts to prevent opioid ADEs.
The ADE Action Plans Opioids Section targets preventing opioid ADEs in patients prescribed opioids for
pain, including patients who are injured through aberrant drug behavior. Discussion of patients who are
prescribed opioids for addiction treatment, patients diverting opioids, and patients injured through
suicide attempts is outside of the scope of the ADE Action Plan.
Although not specifically addressed in the ADE Action Plan, misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is
an important public health problem and is the current target of several Federal and statewide initiatives
by agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The FIW for Opioid ADEs acknowledges that there is a continuum
of aberrant drug-related behaviors, and misuse and abuse are strong predictors for prescription opioid
ADEs. The ADE Action Plan defers to the work of other Federal Agencies with regard to the specific issue
of prescription opioid misuse and abuse.
The accurate categorization of opioid-related overdose deaths resulting from therapeutic use, versus
misuse and abuse, is extremely challenging from a public health surveillance and epidemiologic
perspective. Patients who are appropriately prescribed opioids can gradually drift into the spectrum of
misuse/abuse through aberrant drug-related behaviors, such as increasing the dose or frequency of
their opioids without consulting their prescriber [14]. This makes it difficult to target patients who are
misusing/abusing opioids because it is challenging to identify patients who drift from therapeutic use to
misuse/abuse. Aside from the practical difficulties in collecting data that can differentiate opioid ADEs
from the normal course of care versus those arising from opioid misuse and abuse, the clinical
definitions of addiction, dependence, misuse, and abuse are all still under debate within the pain

Section 7 | Opioids
community [15]. The ambiguous definitions of misuse/abuse also make it difficult to draw conclusions
from available data. As a result, the ADE Action Plan recommendations do not differentiate between
patients who may misuse opioids. Instead, the Action Plan recommendations seek to reduce harm in all
patients who are prescribed opioids for pain. The Action Plan supports developing a consensus on
clinical and surveillance definitions of these terms but recognizes that this is outside of the scope of the
plan. The ADE Action Plan does recognize the limitations of the data available and is cautious not to
draw conclusions beyond those that the data can explain. For example, the CDC identified more than
16,651 opioid overdose deaths in 2010 [10], but it was not possible to distinguish deaths that occurred
in the normal course of care when using medications as prescribed from deaths that resulted from
intentional misuse and abuse. SAMHSAs Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) estimated that more
than 420,000 ED visits resulted from nonmedical use of prescription pain relievers in 2011 [12].
However, limited data are available about the number of ED visits for opioid ADEs during the normal
course of care. Because of these limitations, much of the data cited throughout the opioid section of
the ADE Action Plan may include patients who deliberately misuse/abuse opioids. These limitations are
noted whenever applicable.
Surveillance
Understanding trends in opioid injuries and safe prescribing practices requires accurate,
timely, and adequately representative information on key process and outcome
measuresat national, regional, and facility levels.
A number of Federal- and State-based surveillance systems provide data on opioid ADEs. Broadly, these
surveillance systems can be categorized as measuring three types of outcomes: (1) clinical (primary)
outcomes (e.g., ED visits, deaths); (2) intermediate (surrogate) outcomes (e.g., clinical or laboratory
values that precede or lead to clinical outcomes); and (3) process measures, indicators of actions aimed
at mitigating the risk for clinical or intermediate outcomes (e.g., use of urine drug tests or State
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program [PDMP] data). Clinical outcomes and process outcomes are most
applicable to opioid ADEs because the prevention utility and role of intermediate outcomes is not clearly
established. The identified Federal surveillance strategies have generally not been designed to assess
intermediate outcomes related to opioid ADEs. A summary of Federal surveillance systems and selected
State surveillance systems specific to opioid ADEs is presented in Table 11.

Section 7 | Opioids
Currently available Federal surveillance systems outlined in the other sections are also capable of
assessing the national opioid ADE burden. Federal systems involved in direct patient care (e.g., IHS,
VHA) can capture regional- and facility-level information on the quality of opioid management. Table 12
provides a summary of opioid ADE-related metrics from currently available Federal surveillance systems.
Table 11. Summary of Opioid ADE Metrics Collected by Federal and Relevant State Surveillance
Systems
Source Overview
National Vital Statistics System Collects data from all death certificates filed by States and territories
(NVSS), CDC in the United States, including deaths involving drugs.
Uses ICD codes to identify the underlying causes of death (e.g., drug
overdose) and contributing causes (e.g., specific pharmaceutical or
illicit drugs).
Drug Abuse Warning Network Collects data for drug-related ED visits from a nationally
(DAWN), SAMHSA representative sample of U.S. non-Federal, short-stay, general
medical and surgical hospitals with one or more EDs open 24 hours a
day.
Completed data collection in 2011; data are being incorporated into a
larger National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) survey.
Prescription Behavior Surveillance Will collect de-identified data from multiple State Prescription Drug
System (PBSS), CDC, FDA, BJA (under Monitoring Programs (PDMPs).
development) Number of participating PDMPs continues to increase, with the goal
of collecting nationally representative data to develop surveillance
reports for each participating State.
Prescription Drug Monitoring 49 States have legislative authority for PDMPs, and 47 States have
Programs (PDMPs) active systems to collect State-level data related to the prescribing
and dispensing of controlled substances.
PDMPs collect patient, prescriber, dispensing pharmacy, and drug
information.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; BJA = Bureau of Justice Assistance; ED = emergency department; DAWN = Drug
Abuse Warning Network; DEA = Drug Enforcement Administration; ICD = International Classification of Diseases; NCHS =
National Center for Health Statistics; NVSS = National Vital Statistics System; PBSS = Prescription Behavior Surveillance System;
PDMP = Prescription Drug Monitoring Program; SAMHSA = Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Section 7 | Opioids
Table 12. Summary of Metrics Related to Opioid ADEs Collected by Federal and Relevant State
Surveillance Systems
Opioid ADEs or Opioid ADEs or

Geographic Data Collection Management Metrics: Management Metrics:
Scope Method Inpatient Settings Outpatient Settings
National ADE Administrative AHRQ (NIS): AHRQ (NEDS):
Incidence/Rates claims and/or EHR Inpatient stays with ED visits with ICD-9-CM codes
data ICD-9-CM codes indicative of opioid ADEs
indicative of opioid CMS (Medicare Part D Claims):
ADEs Outpatient prescribing to detect fraud
and abuse
National ADE Medical-record AHRQ (MPSMS):* CDC (NEISS-CADES):
Incidence/Rates review Opioids are not ED visits for opioid overdoses and other
currently captured by ADEs, not related to misuse/abuse
MPSMS system, but will CDC (NVSS-Mortality):
be included after the Deaths due to opioid overdose
conversion to QSRS.
SAMHSA (DAWN):**
ED visits for opioid ADEs
Regional-/ Administrative Not available DOD:
Facility-level ADE claims and/or EHR Outpatient clinic visits, ED visits,
Incidence/Rates data hospitalizations with ICD-9-CM codes
(Quality and/or CPT codes
Improvement) VA:
VA/DOD guideline-based process
measures
Outpatient clinic visits, ED visits,
hospitalizations for opioid overdoses &
other relevant ADEs per ICD codes
and/or CPT codes and prescription data
(e.g., naloxone Rx)
VA/DOD/State PDMP:
Number of opioids prescribed linked
with patient and prescriber
Number of patients with multiple
opioid prescribers
Number of patients on high daily dose
of opioids
Spontaneous Blank FDA: FDA:
Reports Clinician-diagnosed or Clinician-diagnosed or patient-reported
patient-reported ADE ADE
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; ARCOS = Automation of Reports and Consolidation Order System; CPT = Current
Procedural Terminology; DAWN = Drug Abuse Warning Network; DEA = Drug Enforcement Administration; ED = emergency
department; EHR = electronic health record; ICD-9-CM = International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical
Modification; PDMP = Prescription Drug Monitoring Program; QSRS = Quality and Safety Review System; SAMHSA = Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
* In 2015, MSPMS will be replaced by the Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS).
** Surveillance using DAWN is currently undergoing transition to CDCs National Hospital Care Survey.

Section 7 | Opioids
Outcome and process measures related to opioid ADEs are lacking.

Currently, few validated metrics are available to assess national- or facility-level burden of opioid ADEs.
Opportunities for improvement include the development and validation of clinical outcome and process
measures, standardized definitions for opioid ADEs, requirements for reporting, and research into
validated metrics that can reliably identify opioid ADEs.
PDMPs and PBSS represent important opportunities for advancing surveillance to reduce
opioid ADEs.
One of the opportunities for advancing surveillance is continuing to develop PDMPs and the PBSS so as
to optimally capture the data needed to identify high-risk prescribing patterns and to better understand
risk factors for opioid ADEs. Ideally, PDMPs should be able to track patients across settings (including
across different States), identify high-risk prescribing practices, and alert prescribers to aberrant drug-
related behaviors in patients prescribed opioids.
Future surveillance efforts should capture opioid ADEs on the basis of validated process
and outcome measures, differentiate opioid ADEs that occur in the normal course of
care from those arising from opioid misuse/abuse, and identify ADEs occurring during
transitions of care.
A number of potential process measuressuch as number and doses of opioids prescribed, number of
patients with multiple prescribers, number of patients on high daily doses of opioids, and number of
patients co-prescribed opioids and sedativesare available through data collection sources, such as
EHRs and PDMPs. Federal Agencies should explore the best methods to collect and manage these data
to allow for accurate, real-time evaluation of trends in validated process measures. Figure 19
summarizes the recommendations to advance surveillance strategies for opioid ADEs.

Section 7 | Opioids
Advance Surveillance Strategies for Opioid ADEs
Actions That Can Potentially Advance

Surveillance Strategies for Opioid ADEs
Determine the adequacy of diagnostic and procedural coding for capturing opioid-related
overdose events.
Assess specificity, sensitivity, PPV, and NPV of ICD and CPT codes for capturing opioid-
related overdose events.
Develop, assess, and validate novel measures for identifying and recording opioid ADEs
(outlined in Table 15).
Address strengths and limitations of using process measures to identify opioid ADEs.
Study associations between process measures and risk of opioid ADEs in inpatient and
outpatient settings.
Improve access to more integrated EHR data with linked pharmacy and outcomes data.
Identify appropriate ADE surveillance metrics for opioid ADEs in inpatient and outpatient
settings.
Develop better surveillance definitions for opioid-related overdose events.
Clarify criteria for identifying opioid ADEs that occur in the normal course of care versus
those arising as a result of opioid misuse and abuse.
Identify appropriate ADE surveillance metrics for opioid ADEs.
Improve the capabilities and use of PDMPs.
- Promote increased use of PDMP systems by providers.
- Maintain funding for PDMP development at the State and Federal level.
- Strive for real-time data reporting and cross-setting interoperability for PDMPs.
International Classification of Diseases; NPV = negative predictive value; PDMP = Prescription Drug Monitoring Program; PPV =
positive predictive value
Many evidence-based guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain address the issue of opioid
safety [3, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Specifically, the guidelines make patient-centered care central to the
decisionmaking process through assessing patients at risk for opioid ADEs and balancing the goals of
pain management with the risk of opioid ADEs. Risk factors for inpatient and outpatient opioid ADEs
differ in a number of ways. In inpatient settings, system-wide changes may be the most important
target for ADE prevention because many opioid ADEs occur from medication and prescribing errors and
inadequate monitoring of patient outcomes. In outpatient settings, safer prescribing and monitoring by
providers and patient-centered interventions are critical because problems such as inappropriate

Section 7 | Opioids
medication use (e.g., inappropriate dose, issues of adherence, aberrant medication-related behavior)
are likely to play a far larger role in causing opioid ADEs in these settings than in inpatient settings [14].
Federal Agencies have a number of strategies to promote safe opioid prescribing and reduce opioid
ADEs; these can serve as a model for private stakeholders. Federal Agencies should continue to
develop, study, and validate opioid ADE prevention strategies and promote the adoption of validated
ADE prevention strategies throughout the continuum of care. Current and future Federal assets related
to the safe management of opioid therapy are summarized in Figure 20.

Section 7 | Opioids
Figure 20. Federal Assets Related to Safe Management of Opioid Therapy, as Identified by the
National Quality Strategy Priorities

DOD/VA:
Opioid Prescribing Protocol/ GuidelinesIncludes recommendations for assessing patients for appropriate
pain therapy.
Education opportunitiesProvider education Web portal (Talent Management System [TMS]) offers several
continuing education courses on pain management, including a course on Opioid Therapy for Acute and
Chronic Pain.
Opioid Safe Program at Womack Army Medical Center (Fort Bragg, North Carolina)Primary care clinicians
provide high-risk patients prescribed opioids with kits containing naloxone, along with training in identifying
and responding to overdose symptoms.
FDA:
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS)Required strategy for extended-release and long-acting
opioids; FDA developed a Blueprint for Prescriber Education for Extended-Release and Long-Acting Opioid
Analgesics and maintains a list of compliant continuing education (CE) programs for prescribers that include
this curriculum.
Opioid Dose Conversion TableSafe and reliable dose conversion table is based on updated evidence.
IHS:
TeleBehavioral Health Center of Excellence Pain and Addictions course15-series Webinar training
program provides specialized training on how to treat pain and addictions.
Pain Champion Training63-hour CE course trains local and regional experts, using the Project ECHO
Model, which shares expertise by utilizing telehealth technology to connect an ECHO Team (primary care,
specialists, and other providers integral to a patient-centered medical home team) to providers in rural and
underserved locations.
NIH:
- NIDAMED Physician Education ToolsThe National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) created online tools and
resources for medical professionals on safe pain management, including two classes entitled Safe
Prescribing for Pain (2 CME/CE credits) and Managing Pain Patients Who Abuse Rx Drugs i (1.75 CME/CE
credits). In addition to these two pain-focused educational resources, NIDA has developed an additional
resource, Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents: Screening and Engagement in Primary Care Settings,
which can be used by health care professionals to screen adolescents for aberrant prescription drug use and
substance abuse disorders.
SAMHSA:
- Opioid Overdose Prevention ToolkitEquips communities and local governments with materials to develop
policies and practices to help prevent opioid-related overdoses and deaths, and addresses issues for first
responders, treatment providers, and those recovering from opioid overdose.ii
i
Available at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/nidamed/etools
ii
Available at: http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Opioid-Overdose-Prevention-Toolkit/SMA13-4742

Section 7 | Opioids
Resources for Patients and Family Engagement

ACL:
Chronic Disease Self-Management Education ProgramsProvide education and tools to older adults and
adults with disabilities to help them better manage chronic conditions including chronic pain.i
DEA:
National Take-Back InitiativeProgram gives patients a safe place to dispose of unused opioids.
FDA:
REMSPatient counseling document to guide education on risk and opioid management for patients on
extended-release or on long-acting opioids.
VA:
Taking Opioids Responsibly: For Your Safety and the Safety of OthersA patient education tool.
Resources To Promote Best Practices Within Communities
VA:
VHA National Pain Management StrategyiiUses facility-level pain management committees to provide
oversight and coordination of pain management activities to align care practices with the best practices.
Resources for Communication and Care Coordinationiii
AHRQ:
Project REDIncludes a number of medication-related strategies (i.e., active medication reconciliation,
care providers).
DOD:
Sole Provider Program (SPP)Instituted by the Army as a risk mitigation program for high-risk patients, the
SPP identifies high-risk patients and assigns a single provider and one alternate who are authorized to
prescribe opioids.
IHS:
Nationally Clinical Pharmacy Specialists (NCPS) ProgramivAdvanced pharmacy certification that allows for
pharmacists to provide pain management at Gallup, NM; Anchorage, AK; and Claremore, OK.
Pharmacist-run pain management clinics with pharmacists prescribing medications, and ordering and
interpreting labs per protocol.
VA:
Systems to track patient progressVA is piloting a mobile application for smartphones (VA Pain Coach)
designed to provide tools to help patients set personal goals for pain management; track their symptoms,
functioning, and self-care behaviors over time; and provide guidance on pain management strategies for
patients and caregivers.
Opioid Renewal Clinic at the Philadelphia VA Medical CenterPrimary care physicians refer at-risk patients
to a pharmacist-run prescription management clinic, where an onsite pain nurse practitioner and a
multispecialty pain team work together to stabilize the patient on an effective pain management plan before
returning the patient to primary care management.
Abbreviations: CE = continuing education; DEA = Drug Enforcement Administration; REMS = Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategy; SPP = DOD Sole Provider Program; TMS = VA Talent Management System
i
Available at: http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/AoA_Programs/HPW/ARRA/PPHF.aspx
ii
Available at: http://www.va.gov/PAINMANAGEMENT/VHA_Pain_Management_Strategy.asp
iii
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/research.html
iv
Available at: http://www.usphs.gov/corpslinks/pharmacy/cpharm_creds.aspx

Section 7 | Opioids
Inpatient Settings
In 2001, the Joint Commission developed standards for pain treatment to promote access to adequate
pain management. In that context, The Joint Commission also identified opioids as an important cause
of inpatient ADEs, with the most dangerous ADE being respiratory depression. The 2011 Joint
Commission Sentinel Event Alert Safe Use of Opioids in Hospitals recommended improved assessment
and management of pain to avoid accidental opioid overdose [20]. Accepted standards of care
recommend a systematic approach to patient assessment and patient monitoring. Federal Agencies,
including VA and DOD, have identified the following potential targets for reducing opioid ADEs: initiating
patients on a high dose of opioids, converting between opioid formulations, and opioid dose titration.
Figure 21 outlines opportunities to advance ADE prevention strategies/tools in inpatient settings
organized around the National Quality Strategy framework.
Figure 21. Opportunities for Advancing Opioid ADE Prevention Strategies/Tools, as Identified by the
National Quality Strategy PrioritiesInpatient Settings
Expand dissemination of evidence-based opioid guidelines/

Safer Care protocols (e.g., dosing changes, management of high-risk
individuals)
Patient and Family Promote patient education to improve the safety of care
transition
Engagement
Effective Develop more optimal and integrated health IT opioid

management tools
Communication and Coordinate care through practices such as medication
Coordination of Care reconciliation and discharge counseling
Science-Driven Promote systematic and coordinated care

Promote safe practices at point of initiation of inpatient opioids
Prevention and Promote the use of evidence-based tools for morphine
Treatment equivalent dose (MED) and transitions between formulations
Promotion of Best Use metrics to monitor the use of opioid safety best practices
Promote the use of evidence-based guidelines for monitoring
Practices Within
Communities
Abbreviations: MED = morphine equivalent dose
Outpatient Settings
Opioid ADEs in outpatient settings are a multifaceted problem. Although the ADE Action Plan does not
directly address the issue of misuse/abuse, it does advocate for steps to improve prescribing behaviors

Section 7 | Opioids
to prevent patients who are prescribed opioids from abusing opioids. Although the factors driving
opioid overdoses are not completely understood, a number of factors have been associated with
increased risk for opioid overdose in the outpatient setting, based on varying degrees of evidence, and
can serve as targets for outpatient opioid overdose prevention. These risk factors are: concomitant use
of central nervous system (CNS) depressants (especially benzodiazepines) [14, 20, 21], high daily opioid
dose [22, 23, 24, 25, 26], recent initiation of opioid therapy in treatment-naive patients [20, 27, 28],
multiple opioid prescribers [14, 29], mental health disorder co-morbidities [14, 20, 21, 28, 30], medical
co-morbidities (e.g., sleep apnea) [3], active or history of substance abuse [20, 21, 28, 29], aberrant
medication-related behaviors [14, 28, 31, 32], and higher risk formulations (e.g., methadone) [33].
Federal Agencies can play an essential role in promoting evidence-based strategies to address opioid
overdose risk factors and promote safe practices. Figure 22 presents opportunities to advance ADE
prevention strategies/tools in outpatient settings organized around the National Quality Strategy
Priorities.
National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings
Expand dissemination of evidence-based opioid guidelines/

protocols (e.g., dosing changes, management of high-risk
patients)
Improve availability and uptake of safe opioid prescribing
practices
Engage patients between provider visits at pain clinics or
postdischarge from the hospital
Safer Care Promote the transition from the biomedical model to the bio-
psychosocial pain management model
Develop strategies and tools to facilitate integrated team-
based care, specialist consultation, and integration with
nonpharmacological treatments
Promote the use of PDMPs and improve communication/data
sharing among health care providers, pharmacies, and health
care systems

Section 7 | Opioids
National Quality Strategy PrioritiesOutpatient Settings (continued)
Develop and distribute patient education materials and

strategies, using the principles of health literacy and theories of
behavioral change
Patient and Family Spread public health messages promoting safe opioid storage,
Engagement use, and disposal, and not sharing opioids with friends or
family
Educate patients and their families to recognize early signs of
dependence
Effective Develop more optimal and integrated health IT opioid

management tools
Communication and
Integrate opioid-specific targets into care transition models
Coordination of Care
Promote systematic and coordinated care through strategies

such as team-based care and medication reconciliation
Science-Driven Promote the use of evidence-based strategies for managing risk
factors associated with opioid overdoses
Prevention and Increase availability of mental health and substance use
Treatment disorder treatment for patients on opioid therapy
Promote the use of health IT tools to identify high-risk opioid
prescribing practices
Promotion of Best Use metrics to monitor the use of opioid safety best practices
Promote effective strategies identified by Federal Agencies that
Practices Within
engage in patient care
Communities
Federal Agencies should explore ways to improve uptake of evidence-based strategies

for safe opioid prescribing, including increased use of prescribing guidelines for chronic
pain treatment and didactic provider training on opioid prescribing for both trainees
and fully qualified clinicians (e.g., continuing education). More importantly, Federal
Agencies should support training methods, interventions, and tools to encourage,
model, and facilitate safe opioid prescribing.
Opioid prescribing guidelines for the treatment of chronic pain promote assessment of patient risk
factors prior to initiating opioid therapy and recommend continued assessment of patient therapy goals
and outcomes to determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of therapy. Prescribing guidelines
also provide consensus-based strategies on how to reduce the risk for opioid ADEs. Knowledge of these
strategies is necessary, although not sufficient for appropriate opioid prescribing; Federal Agencies
should continue to work to educate clinicians on safe and appropriate opioid prescribing, and use
available mechanisms to promote clinician education and effective behavior change. Federal Agencies

Section 7 | Opioids
should work to develop, evaluate, and disseminate (1) training methods that include modeling, practice,
expert collaboration, and/or feedback on real-patient cases (e.g., Project ECHO, Academic Detailing,
expert consultation and mentoring); (2) interventions to identify and address high-risk cases (e.g.,
aberrant drug-related behavior or risk factor screening and intervention, high-risk patient treatment
program, audit and feedback, or panel management systems); and (3) reminders and tools that guide
clinicians in real time (e.g., computerized decision support systems, clinical reminders, dose
determination tools).
Federal Agencies should promote patient-centered, multimodal, team-based care,

from the health system level down to the clinician level, to personalize pain
management, properly manage patients with high-risk medical and mental health co-
morbidities, and intensively manage patients at high risk for opioid overdose.
Federal Agencies should promote evidence-based practices for pain management, including but not
limited to opioid therapy. Federal Agencies should promote practices and services that identify and
properly manage co-morbidities that increase the risk of opioid ADEs. This includes management of
behavioral, mental health, and medical risk factors for unintentional and intentional opioid overdose
and opioid abuse, as well as use of nonopioid pharmacological therapies and
nonpharmacological therapies as part of an overall pain management plan. Currently, there is limited
access to multimodal, evidence-based pain management and treatment of medical and psychiatric co-
morbidities. Federal Agencies should promote access to evidence-based, multimodal, and
interdisciplinary care for the management of chronic pain and co-morbidities. The Affordable Care Act
provisions that support Mental Health parity may improve access to services that address mental health
co-morbidities. Increased uptake of existing Health and Behavioral Assessment and Intervention CPT
codes may also address this challenge.
Federal Agencies should develop and encourage the use of patient education
materials and tools, in accordance with health literacy principles, to empower the
patient to use opioids safely and encourage patient engagement.
Patients can play a major role in increasing the safe use of prescription opioids. To promote safe opioid
use at home, patients should be educated about the safe and proper use of opioids for pain
management, not sharing opioids, secure storage of opioids, and safe disposal of any opioids that are
not used as part of therapy. Patient education materials, including materials the prescriber provides,
should be developed using principles of health literacy to ensure that the patient understands the
messages presented.

Section 7 | Opioids
Patient education should also include ways to identify signs of misuse, abuse, dependence, and
addiction, and to identify and treat an overdose. Federal Agencies should help develop, evaluate, and
disseminate effective training, tools, and programs to provide patients with the skills and resources
necessary to safely respond to moderate to severe pain and signs of misuse, abuse, and overdose, as
well as to manage opioid therapy (e.g., medication take-back programs, overdose education and
naloxone distribution programs, electronic tracking and reminder tools, suicide hotlines, and relaxation
skills training).
Federal Agencies involved in patient care play an important role in assessing and
promoting best practices for pain management and opioid safety.
BOP, DOD, IHS, and VA, all of which provide direct patient care, have taken steps to advance the practice
of pain management and improve opioid safety. Because DOD and VA serve active-duty service
members and military veterans who often have injuries requiring pain management, these agencies
have been actively pursuing evidence-based pain management and systems to promote opioid safety.
Table 13 outlines the initiatives that are currently underway in VA and DOD systems and can be
evaluated, modeled, and expanded to the private sector. DOD and VA have developed their own opioid
prescribing guidelines for chronic pain [15] and have developed system-based methods to measure how
the guidelines are followed and monitor trends associated with the use of opioid prescribing guidelines;
however, prescriber adherence to the prescribing guidelines could be optimized with a system of
continuous improvement. These agencies can serve as a model for the private sector as a system of
continuous improvement and a system that promotes evidence-based pain management and evidence-
based opioid ADE prevention strategies.

Section 7 | Opioids
Table 13. Systematic Actions From VA and DOD Facilities for Safe and Effective Opioid Use for Pain
Management
System Action
Systematic Strategy VA National Pain Management StrategyOutlines systematic strategies to improve
pain management while maintaining opioid safety.
VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic
PainProvides evidence-based recommendations on when and how to effectively
and safely use opioids for chronic pain.
Performance Structure measuresThe VA Health Care Analysis and Information Group created and
Measurement administered a survey assessing organization, policy, staffing, and availability of pain
management services at health care facilities in 2010.
Process measuresVA developed a set of administrative data-based metrics that
assess facility-level adherence to key recommendations of the VA/DOD Clinical
Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.
Outcome measuresVAs electronic Mental Health Assistant makes validated
assessments for patient outcomes available for use in the EHR, including the Pain
Outcomes Questionnaire (POQ), West Haven Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory
(WHYMPI), and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI).
Point-of-Care Clinical VAs ATHENA SystemOpioid system is a point-of-care decision support system to
Management and guide opioid management.
Information Support VA inpatient tools for converting among different strengths/formulations of opioids.
VAs Academic Detailing program uses clinical pharmacists and computerized panel
management dashboards to work with primary care providers to address patient and
clinical risk factors within their patient panel.
VAs Opioid Safety Initiative uses performance metric-based reviews and feedback to
identify and assist providers with elevated rates of clinical risk factors within their
patient caseload.
VAs SCAN-ECHO program links a community of primary care providers with pain
specialists, using telehealth technology to provide co-management, consultation, and
training on difficult patient cases.
Co-Morbidity Mental Health Assessment and TreatmentVA requires annual screening for
Management/ depression, using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and for posttraumatic
Individualized Care stress disorder (PTSD) using the Primary CarePTSD (PC-PTSD) screen with referral for
additional assessment and treatment of positive cases.
Abbreviations: BPI = Brief Pain Inventory; EHR = electronic health record; PHQ-2 = Patient Health Questionnaire; POQ = Pain
Outcomes Questionnaire; PC-PTSD = Primary Care Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen; PTSD =
posttraumatic stress disorder; SCAN-ECHO = Specialty Care Access NetworkExtension for Community Healthcare Outcomes;
WHYMPI = West Haven Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory

Section 7 | Opioids
Current work of Federal partners is important for monitoring administrative prescription

data to identify high-risk prescribing practices and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse
related to opioids.
Prevention of Opioid Adverse Drug Events in Medicare Part D

Effective January 1, 2013, CMS implemented a new policy in Medicare Part D, requiring plan sponsors to
better address potential overutilization of opioids in their prescription drug benefit plans through
improved drug utilization controls and case management. The goal of this policy is for Part D sponsors
to reduce the overutilization of opioids among their enrollees. The policy, described in the Contract
Year (CY) 2013 Final Call Letter on April 2, 2012, with supplemental guidance issued on September 6,
2012, includes a medication safety-focused approach, while maintaining beneficiary access to needed
medications. Through implementation of the Part D opioid policy, overutilization of opioids can be
identified and addressed, and related ADEs may be reduced.
As part of their opioid overutilization programs, for cases not addressed through improved prospective
formulary management, Part D sponsors are expected to use retrospective drug utilization reviews (DURs)
to identify at-risk beneficiaries and engage in case management with their prescribers. The policy permits
appropriate claim controls on coverage of opioids for identified enrollees, including safety edits and
quantity limits applied at point of sale (POS), with prescriber agreement or when prescribers are not
responsive to case management. The suggested retrospective DUR methodology to identify beneficiaries
who are at the highest risk for opioid ADEs is based on cumulative daily morphine equivalent dose (MED)
across all opioids used by the beneficiary for chronic pain and accounts for the beneficiarys use of multiple
prescribers and pharmacies. The guidance also addresses data sharing among Part D plan sponsors when
a beneficiary for whom an individual claim control has been implemented to prevent Part D coverage of
unsafe dispensing of opioids, moves from one Part D plan to another.
CMS will monitor the implementation of the new opioid policy by Part D sponsors and perform an interim
evaluation of its impact in 2014. Although not a requirement in the Final Call Letter for Contract Year 2014,
CMS strongly encouraged all sponsors to consider developing the ability to implement drug-level POS edits
based on cumulative MED across the opioid class as soon as possible.

Section 7 | Opioids
State Medicaid Drug Monitoring for ADEs in the Fee-for-Service Outpatient Pharmacy Programi
Pharmacy coverage is an optional benefit under Federal Medicaid law; however, all States currently
provide coverage for outpatient prescription drugs to most enrollees within their Medicaid programs.
The Medicaid prescription drug programs include the management, development, and administration of
systems and data collection necessary to operate the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, the Federal Upper
Limit calculation for generic drugs, and the DUR Program.
The Medicaid DUR Program promotes patient safety through State-administered utilization
management tools and processes. The State Medicaid agencys electronic monitoring system screens
prescription drug claims to identify problems, such as therapeutic duplication, drugdisease
contraindications, incorrect dosage or duration of treatment, drug allergy, and clinical misuse or abuse,
in order to minimize ADEs. DUR involves ongoing and periodic examination of claims data to identify
patterns of medically unnecessary care and implements corrective action when needed.
Federal partners should expand monitoring of administrative prescription data to

identify high-risk prescribing practices and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse related to
opioids.
Opportunities to advance the prevention of opioid ADEs through incentives and oversight-based
strategies are summarized in Figure 23. Incentive and oversight levers that could advance opioid ADE
prevention fall into three categories: (1) health care quality measures that are utilized in such programs
as CMS value-based purchasing incentive programs (e.g., EHR Meaningful Use Incentive Program,
Hospital Pay-for-Reporting, Inpatient Prospective Payment System); (2) reimbursement or coverage of
services; and (3) identification of inappropriate opioid prescribing, fraud, and abuse through payor data.
Although the FIW recommendations address the public payor perspective, the opportunities identified
may also influence private sector advancements in this area, allowing for private payors to learn from
successful public sector strategies.
i
Detailed information on the Medicaid DUR program, along with reports the States submit annually on the
operation of their programs can be found at: http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-
Topics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Drug-Utilization-Review.html

Section 7 | Opioids
Advance Health Care Policy Strategies for Opioid ADE Prevention
Actions That Can Potentially Advance Health Care

Policy Strategies for Preventing Opioid ADEs
Inpatient Settings
Expand national health care quality reporting measures to include concepts related to
multidisciplinary, systematic, and coordinated models of care.
Develop and validate health care quality reporting measures that can be used to assess
safe opioid prescribing and appropriate monitoring in the inpatient setting.
Outpatient Settings
Address payment/coverage barriers to uptake of evidence-based, high-quality ADE
prevention strategies and multimodal, team-based pain management.
Expand national health care quality reporting measures to include ones specific to opioid
ADE prevention through validated process measures that identify high-risk practices.
Use administrative data from public and private payors and State PDMPs to identify high-
risk patients and high-risk prescribers contributing to misuse/abuse and fraud.
Transitions of Care/Coordinated Care
Address barriers to more integrated pain management.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; PDMP= Prescription Drug Management Program
Federal Agencies that develop, promote, and incentivize EHR standards play an
important role in advancing health ITbased strategies for inpatient opioid ADE
prevention.
EHRs can serve an important role in providing patient-specific information that is necessary for making
appropriate clinical decisions by providers. EHRs can also support the use of clinical decision support
(CDS) to identify appropriate starting doses and MEDs between different opioid formulations to help
clinicians safely transition between opioid formulations and identify appropriate doses. EHRs can also
provide clinical reminders and templates to prompt and facilitate recommended clinical practices, and
might improve assessment, documentation, and collaborative treatment planning for patient risk factors
and aberrant behaviors.

Section 7 | Opioids
The FIWs for ADEs proposed EHR (Stage 3) MU electronic clinical quality measures for
EHRs that can potentially advance opioid ADE prevention.
Health care quality measures are important in helping to advance opioid ADE prevention efforts. In June
2013, the FIW for Opioid ADEs recommended a set of measure considerations to the Quality Measures
Workgroup of the Health Information Technology Policy Committee. That committee, convened by the
HHS ONC, makes recommendations for candidate measures for the Stage 3 EHR MU requirements. This
will potentially support and advance opioid ADE prevention and monitoring for consideration in Stage 3
of the MU Incentive Program. These recommendations are summarized in Table 14. The
recommendations are strictly for data collection purposes, to help clinicians and researchers gain a
better understanding of the potential risk factors associated with opioid ADEs. There are currently no
nationally endorsed metrics for opioid ADEs. As a result, the proposed recommendations were
developed de novo or are based on VA-specific measures and require further development and
validation as a tool for reducing opioid ADEs. After initial recommendation, measures under
consideration are submitted to CMS for further review, development, and testing. Final measure
acceptance is dependent on rigorous and complete internal and external public reviews.
The outpatient metrics detailed in Table 14 targeted long-term opioid use for chronic pain and are
modeled after measures that are currently in use by VA to measure adherence to the VA/DOD Clinical
Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.

Section 7 | Opioids
Table 14. Measure Considerations for EHR (Stage 3) MU Requirements That Can Potentially Advance
Opioid ADE Prevention, as Proposed by the Federal Interagency Workgroup for Opioid ADEs
Outpatient Clinical Quality Measure
Concepts
Blank
Patients on high daily dose of long- There is an association between high daily dose of opioids and opioid
term opioid therapy ADEs, which requires further study to understand the impact on clinical
practice.
Patients co-prescribed long-term Co-prescribing of opioids with CNS depressants, especially
opioid therapy and CNS depressants benzodiazepines, is associated with opioid overdose deaths.
Patients on long-term opioid All guidelines recommend assessment of risk related to substance
therapy given a toxicology screen abuse prior to initiating opioids and while patients are on therapy.
prior to initiating therapy and at
least once a year while on long-
term opioid therapy
Patients on long-term opioid Guidelines recommend monitoring PDMPs when available.
therapy who were checked in to the Early data show that PDMPs may be effective, although more research
relevant Prescription Drug will be necessary as PDMPs continue to be developed and used.
Monitoring Program prior to
initiating therapy and at least every
year if on chronic opioid therapy
Patients on long-term opioid All guidelines recommend that patients starting on long-term opioid
therapy who have evidence of a therapy have an opioid care management plan that identifies the goals
written opioid care management of therapy and the expectations for the patient.
plan
Number of patients on long-term All guidelines recommend assessment for mental health disorders prior
opioid therapy who have evidence to initiating opioids, and treatment as appropriate.
of mental health assessment
Number of patients in facility or Numbers are based on a VA measure that is used to compare
practice prescribed opioids prescribing rates across facilities.
Inpatient Clinical Quality Measure
Concepts
Blank
Opioid-naive patients started on Inappropriate prescribing is a significant problem that can lead to
high-dose opioids in the inpatient opioid overdose in the inpatient setting, especially in high-potency
setting formulations.
Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Rule
Concepts
Clinical decision support rules to There should be supporting clinical decision support to promote best
support all measure concepts practices and improve measured processes.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; CNS = central nervous system; IV = intravenous; PCA = patient-
controlled analgesia; PDMP = Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
There remain a number of unanswered questions related to the prevention of opioid ADEs. As a result,
there is a great opportunity for impact through research. Federal resources can play a pivotal role in

Section 7 | Opioids
addressing research questions that can advance opioid safety and improve overall pain management.
These are summarized in Figure 24.
Advance Research Strategies for Opioid ADE Prevention

Opioid Safety
Clinical Science Domain
(CDC, AHRQ, FDA, NIH, publicprivate sector collaborations)
Evaluate the effectiveness of prevention strategies (e.g., UDS, maximum doses, opioid
agreements, single opioid prescriber) that are recommended in opioid prescribing
guidelines.
Improve standardization and coordination of surveillance systems addressing opioid
ADEs.
Promote standardized definitions/criteria for aberrant behavior, misuse, abuse, and
adverse events to compare results across studies, settings, and health systems.
Study real-world management of patients identified as high risk for opioid ADEs (e.g.,
promote the establishment and use of voluntary patient registries).
Evaluate the clinical outcomes of using PDMPs and the effects on prescribers and
patients.
Develop strategies to better coordinate care and improve data sharing between settings.
Clinical/Laboratory/Bench-Top Science Domain
(CDC, NIH, publicprivate sector collaborations)
Research biochemical and genetic mechanisms for the etiology of chronic pain.
Fund and coordinate a comprehensive evaluation of the safety and efficacy of long-term
opioid therapy for chronic pain through high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials
supplemented by data collected from clinical care.
Research risk factors associated with ADEs to define high-risk prescribing practices and
identify patients at risk for opioid ADEs.
Examine emerging pharmacogenomics related to hypermetabolizers of opioids.
Pursue innovative drug development for abuse resistant opioid formulations and
nonopioid drugs for refractory pain.
Evaluate the effectiveness of and adopt adjunctive and behavioral modalities that
augment pain therapy and reduce opioid use for chronic pain.
Abbreviations: ADE = adverse drug event; PDMP = Prescription Drug Monitoring Program; UDS = urine drug screen

Section 7 | Opioids
References
1. Institute of Medicine Report from the Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and
Education: Relieving Pain in America, A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education
and Research. The National Academies Press. 2011. Available from:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13172&page=1.
2. Kalso E, Edwards JE, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic
review of efficacy and safety. Pain. 2004 Dec;112(3):372-80.
3. Chou R, Fanciullo GJ, Fine PG, Adler JA, Ballantyne JC, Davies P, et al. Clinical guidelines for the
use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain. J Pain. 2009 Feb;10(2):113-30.
4. Paulozzi LJ, Jones CM, Mack KA, Rudd RA. Vital Signs: Overdoses of Prescription Opioid Pain
Relievers, United States 1999-2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. 2011 Nov 4;60(43):1487-1492. Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6043a4.htm?s_cid=mm6043a4_w
5. Volkow ND, Mclellan TA, Cotto JH, Karithanom M, Weiss SR. Characteristics of Opioid
Prescriptions in 2009. JAMA. 2011;305(13):1299-130.
6. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics: The Use of Medicines in the United States: Review of
2010, April 2011. Available from:
http://www.imshealth.com/ims/Global/Content/Insights/IMS%20Institute%20for%20Healthcar
e%20Informatics/IHII_Medicines_in_U.S_Report_2011.pdf
7. Von Korff M, Kolodny A, Deyo RA, Chou R. Long-term opioid therapy reconsidered. Ann Intern
Med. 2011 Sep 6;155(5):325-8.
8. Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain:
systematic review of randomized trials of oral opioids. Arthritis Res Ther. 2005;7(5):R1046-51.
9. Baldini A, Von Korff M, Lin EH. A Review of Potential Adverse Effects of Long-Term Opioid
Therapy: A Practitioners Guide. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2012;14(3). Epub 2012 Jun
14.
10. Jones CM, Mack KA, Paulozzi LJ. Pharmaceutical overdose deaths, US, 2010. JAMA. 2013;
309(7):657-659.
11. CDC. Policy impact: prescription painkiller overdoses. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health
and Human Services, CDC; 2011. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/index.html.
12. DAWN 2011 ED Excel FilesNational Tables. Available from:
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/DAWN.aspx#.
13. Prescription for Peril, Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, 2007 Available from:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6043a4.htm?s_cid=mm6043a4_w.

Section 7 | Opioids
14. Hall AJ, Logan JE, Toblin RL, Kaplan JA, Kraner JC, Bixler D, et al., Patterns of Abuse Among
Unintentional Pharmaceutical Overdose Fatalities. JAMA. 2008;300(22):2613-2620.
15 Smith SM, Dart RC, Katz NP, Paillard F, Adams EH, Comer SD, et.al. Classification and definition
of misuse, abuse, and related events in clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and
recommendations. PAIN. 2013;154(11):2287-96.
16. VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of opioid therapy for long-term pain, D.o.D.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Editor 2010: Washington DC.
17. Manchikanti L, Abdi S, Atluri S, Balog CC, Benyamin RM, Boswell MV, et al. American Society of
Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in long-term
non-cancer pain: Part I--evidence assessment. Pain Physician. 2012; 15(3 Suppl):S1-65.
18. Kahan M, Wilson L, Mailis-Gagnon A, Srivastava A. Canadian guideline for safe and effective use
of opioids for long-term noncancer pain: clinical summary for family physicians. Part 1: general
population. Can Fam Physician. 2011;57(11): 1257-66, e407-18.
19. Kahan M, Wilson L, Mailis-Gagnon A, Srivastava A. Canadian guideline for safe and effective use
of opioids for long-term noncancer pain: clinical summary for family physicians. Part 2: special
populations. Can Fam Physician. 2011; 57(11): 1269-76, e419-28.
20. Joint Commission. Safe Use of Opioids in Hospitals. The Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert,
2012. Available from:
http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/SEA_49_opioids_8_2_12_final.pdf
21. Wunsch MJ, Nakamoto K, Behonick G, Massello W. Opioid deaths in rural Virginia: a description
of the high prevalence of accidental fatalities involving prescribed medications. Am J Addict.
2009;18(1):5-14.
22. Dunn KM, Saunders KW, Rutter CM, Banta-Green CJ, Merrill JO, Sullivan MD, et al. Opioid
Prescriptions for Long-term Pain and Overdose: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(2):
85-92.
23. Bohnert AS, Valenstein M, Bair MJ, Ganoczy D, McCarthy JF, Ilgen MA, Blow FC. Association
Between Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Opioid Overdose-Related Deaths. JAMA.
2011;305(13):1315-21.
24. Gomes T, Mamdani MM, Dhalla IA, Paterson JM, Juurlink DN. Opioid Dose and Drug-Related
Mortality in Patients With Nonmalignant Pain. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):686-91.
25. Braden JB, Russo J, Fan MY, Edlund MJ, Martin BC, DeVries A, Sullivan MD. Emergency
Department Visits Among Recipients of Long-term Opioid Therapy. Arch Intern Med.
2010;170(16):1425-32.
26. Franklin GM, Mai J, Turner J, Sullivan M, Wickizer T, FultonKehoe D. Bending the Prescription
Opioid Dosing and Mortality Curves: Impact of the Washington State Opioid Dosing Guideline.
Am J Indust Med. 2012;55(4):32531.

Section 7 | Opioids
27. Krebs EE, Becker WC, Zerzan J, Bair MJ, McCoy K, Hui S. Comparative mortality among
Department of Veterans Affairs patients prescribed methadone or long-acting morphine for
long-term pain. Pain. 2011;152(8):1789-95.
28. McCowan C, Kidd B, Fahey T. Factors associated with mortality in Scottish patients receiving
methadone in primary care: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2009 Jun 16;338.
29. Johnson EM, Lanier WA, Merrill RM, Crook J, Porucznik CA, Rolfs RT, Sauer B. Unintentional
Prescription Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths: Description of Decedents by Next of Kin or Best
Contact, Utah, 2008-2009. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(4):522-29.
30. Bohnert AS, Ilgen MA, Ignacio RV, McCarthy JF, Valenstein M, Blow FC. Risk of Death From
Accidental Overdose Associated With Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders. Am J Psychiatry.
2012;169:(1)64 70.
31. Fleming MF, Davis J, Passik SD. Reported Lifetime Aberrant Drug-Taking Behaviors Are Predictive
of Current Substance Use and Mental Health Problems in Primary Care Patients. Pain Medicine.
2008;9(8):1098-1106.
32. Morasco BJ, Duckart JP, and Dobscha SK. Adherence to Clinical Guidelines for Opioid Therapy
for Chronic Pain in Patients with Substance Use Disorder. J Gen Intern Med. 2011
September; 26(9): 965971.
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. Vital
Signs: Risk for Overdose from Methadone Use for Pain Relief- United States, 1999-2010. June 6,
2012 Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6126a5.htm

Conclusions and Next Steps
Despite decades of attention on improving patient safety, adverse drug events (ADEs) remain an
important, but largely preventable, source of harm to patients wherever they encounter the health care
system, including inpatient, outpatient, and long-term care settings. The process of developing the
National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention has facilitated communication and
collaborations across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other Federal
partners around this critical public health and patient safety issue. Through the Federal Interagency
Steering Committee and Workgroups, Federal Agencies have shared existing tools, resources, and best
practices for defining, measuring, tracking, and preventing ADEs, and have also identified challenges and
opportunities in advancing the field of ADE prevention.
The ADE Action Plan is only the first step in more systematic efforts by Federal partners to address
surveillance, prevention, policies, and research around high-priority ADE targets in an aligned and
coordinated fashion across the Federal Government. As a followup to the ADE Action Plan, it will be
critical that Federal partners initiate collaborations with other public and private stakeholders. It is
hoped that increased Federal attention to the high prevalence of ADEs and their negative impact on
patients, providers, and health care costs will improve awareness and support for these efforts across
public and private sectors. Broadly, the ADE Action Plan has identified Federal assets that could be
leveraged in the following areas:
SurveillanceUse of enhanced and more consistent definitions of ADEs, specifically those

associated with high-priority ADE targets (i.e., anticoagulants, diabetes agents, opioids), to allow
for more effective measuring and tracking of ADEs.
PreventionSupport of development, dissemination, and uptake of evidence-based guidelines,

best practices, tools, and provider and patient education resources that are specific to high-
priority ADE targets, particularly among high-risk patient populations (e.g., older adults) and in
high-risk settings, where ADE prevention strategies may be lacking (e.g., care transitions, long-
term care)
Incentives and OversightSupport of policies and quality improvement efforts through current
and future health care quality measures, and payment programs and models.

ResearchSupport of ongoing research and evaluations that can help inform efforts to identify
patients at highest risk of ADEs, and of the most effective ADE prevention strategies.
In addition, more coordinated and focused use of health information technology will play a critical role
in advancing ADE prevention efforts through various mechanisms, including but not limited to
improvements in detection and monitoring of ADEs on the basis of more integrated and accessible
electronic health record (EHR) data, electronic transfer of medication information across multiple
providers and multiple settings, facilitating improvements in linkages between pertinent pharmacy and
laboratory data, and integration of clinical decision support tools and health care quality measures
specifically targeting high-priority ADEs.
The success of the ADE Action Plan will depend on ongoing coordination and collaboration across the
Federal Government and among Government Agencies, national experts, and key public and private
stakeholders. The ADE Action Plan should serve as a catalyst to promote leaders at the Federal, State,
and local levels to implement evidence-based guidelines and engage in strategies that will help advance
the goals of the ADE Action Plan. If the national burden of ADEs is to be reduced, Federal partners must
continue in their coordinated and aligned efforts toward this shared goal, providers must be afforded
every opportunity to safely and effectively manage medications, and patients must be enabled to
become educated, engaged consumers and partners in their health care.
In future years, as progress is made in reducing ADEs from the initial targets of the ADE Action Plan (i.e.,
anticoagulants, diabetes agents, opioids), efforts will need to be retooled to additional and newly
emerging medication safety targets. In addition, the ADE Action Plan will need to be adapted to reflect
evolving science and technology.
In the meantime, HHS will continue the activities initiated in developing the ADE Action Plan, including
Facilitating and coordinating nationwide and State-based efforts to align and enhance ADE
surveillance and prevention
Coordinating quarterly meetings of the Federal Interagency Steering Committee for ADEs to
share current Federal efforts related to ADE prevention
Investigating opportunities to host a public meeting focused on sharing and disseminating

current and future best practices, policies, and research around ADE surveillance and prevention

Leveraging a cross-cutting Federal communication workgroup to conduct outreach and

education to public and private stakeholders around ADEs
Supporting continued investment in research to inform and advance medication safety
Identifying opportunities to incorporate measures related to high-priority ADE targets into

existing and future CMS programs
Identifying specific quantitative targets, measurable metrics, and analysis methodology to assess
the impact of the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention following its
implementation (as improvements in surveillance allow for more effective tracking of ADEs)
By leveraging the extensive experience of HHS and other Federal partners in improving the health and
welfare of Americans, we are confident that the goals outlined in the National Action Plan for Adverse
Drug Event Prevention will help advance overall patient safety and wellness across the Nation.

APPENDIX Key Partnerships in
Development of the
A National ADE Action Plan
Table A1. Roles and Activities of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Operating
Divisions and Other Federal Agencies Involved in Development of the National Action Plan for ADE
Prevention
HHS Operating
Division/ Role/Activity
Federal Agency
Bureau of Prisons Blank

Provides medical, dental, and mental health to Federal inmates in Bureau facilities,
BOP including health care delivery, infectious disease management, and medical
designations.
Department of
Blank
Defense
Ensures health care to active duty members, retired service members, National
DOD Guard/Reserve members, families, survivors, and others entitled to DOD medical
care.
Department of Health
Blank
and Human Services
Supports research to identify root causes of threats to patient safety, inform
AHRQ decisions, and improve the quality of health care services.
Manages systems to collect patient safety data.
Provides resources/programs to support care coordination and consumer and

ACL
caregiver activation.
Conducts national surveillance to identify magnitude of and risk factors for health
care-related harms.
CDC
Collaborates with partners to identify effective prevention strategies and provide
public health leadership.
Leverages payment policies and data transparency to enhance delivery of quality
CMS care.
Implements traditional and innovative quality improvement programs.

Appendices
Table A1. Roles and Activities of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Operating
Divisions and Other Federal Agencies Involved in Development of the National Action Plan for ADE
Prevention (continued)
HHS Operating
Division/Federal Role/Activity
Agency
Department of
Health and Human Blank
Services (continued)
Involved in risk mitigation.
FDA
Supports ADE surveillance.
Improves health and achieves health equity of uninsured, isolated, and medically
HRSA vulnerable populations through access to quality services, a skilled health workforce
and innovative programs.
Ensures that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health
IHS
services are available and accessible to American Indian and Alaska Native people.
Conducts and supports research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cure of
NIH human diseases, and in directing programs for the collection, dissemination, and
exchange of information in medicine and health.
Advises on policy development, and is responsible for major activities in policy
OS/ASPE coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation,
and economic analysis.
Supports the adoption of health information technology and the promotion of
OS/ONC
nationwide health information exchange to improve health care.
SAMHSA Provides information, education, and outreach on medication misuse/abuse.
Department of
Blank
Veterans Affairs
Provides health care to eligible Veterans, partners with other Federal departments
VA and Agencies to measure the frequency and impact of ADEs.
Supports surveillance.
Abbreviations: AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ACL = Administration for Community Living; ASPE =
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; BOP = Bureau of Prisons; CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; DOD = Department of Defense; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; HRSA =
Health Resources and Services Administration; IHS = Indian Health Services; NIH = National Institutes of Health; ONC = Office of
the National Coordinator for Health IT; OS = Office of the Secretary; VA = U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

APPENDIX
Overview of Federal Systems That
B Conduct ADE Surveillance
Table B1. Federal Systems for Conducting ADE SurveillanceNational Surveillance Systems
Agency AHRQ AHRQ AHRQ CDC FDA FDA
System HCUP-Nationwide HCUP-NEDS MPSMS* NEISS-CADES FAERS Sentinel Initiative
Name Inpatient Sample Mini-Sentinel Pilot
(NIS); State Inpatient
Databases
Active or Active Active Active Active Passive (voluntary) Active
Passive?
Surveillance Patients in U.S. Visits to U.S. U.S. (all payors) Visits to U.S U.S. and Foreign Enrollees in 18 large
Population short-term, acute- emergency emergency health plans
care, non-Federal departments in departments in including: (currently)
hospitals short-term, acute short-term, acute- Aetna, HealthCore,
care, non-Federal care hospitals Humana, Optum,
hospitals HMORN (partial)
Kaiser (partial),
Vanderbilt University
(TN, WI Medicaid
data)
System Research and Research and Hospital Monitoring acute Signal detection and Signal assessment
Focus statistical reporting statistical reporting complications from harms from assessment
on utilization and on utilization and select medications commonly used
costs of care costs of care (e.g., anticoagulants, medications in
provided in U.S. provided in U.S. insulin, digoxin) ambulatory care
hospitals emergency
departments

Appendices
Table B1. Federal Systems for Conducting ADE SurveillanceNational Surveillance Systems (continued)
Setting of Inpatient or Emergency Select adult inpatient Outpatient (all ages) All settings Drug exposure in any
Drug outpatient (can department (no populations (those setting
Exposure distinguish between POA information is with hospital Inpatient
exposure setting when provided for ED discharge diagnosis (including,
the data system visits) of HF, AMI, or procedures)
provides information pneumonia) Outpatient
on whether diagnoses (including,
were present on procedures)
admission [POA]this
information is
available for a subset
of States contributing
to HCUP)
Geographic National (~1,000 National (~1,000 National (~800 of National (~63 Foreign and Varying with data
Scope hospitals) hospitals) ~3,400 hospitals) hospitals) domestic partners/sources;
Regional Regional No regional No regional Currently Sentinel
stratification stratification stratification stratification covers > 125 million
State estimates for State estimates lives (does not
some States for some States constitute a
nationally
representative
sample)
Data Hospital billing data ED billing data Hospital discharge ED medical records (Primarily) post- Insurance claims
Source(s) medical records marketing, Public and private
spontaneous AE administrative
reports claims
(Some) clinical
trial AE reports

Appendices
Table B1. Federal Systems for Conducting ADE SurveillanceNational Surveillance Systems (continued)
Data NIS is a stratified NEDS is based on Random national National stratified Voluntarily Database queries
Collection sample of about ED data collected sample probability sample submitted reports
Method 1,000 hospitals; all by statewide data
discharge records organizations and
(~8 million) are shared with AHRQ
retained in the through voluntary
dataset. agreements. NEDS
SIDs are based on is a stratified
discharge data sample of about
collected by 1,000 hospital-
statewide data based EDs; all
organizations and records of stays
shared with AHRQ (~2530 million)
through voluntary are retained in the
agreements. dataset.
Case Algorithmic Algorithmic Algorithmic Algorithmic MedDRA Preferred Algorithm detection
Identifica- detection using detection using detection based on detection based on Terms (PTs) or using drug exposure
tion ICD-9-CM codes ICD-9-CM codes chart abstraction of chart abstraction Standardized codes (dispensing),
Method select ADEs (select using clinician MedDRA Queries ICD-9-CM codes
anticoagulants, diagnosis as it (SMQs) (diagnosis), and CPT
antibiotic-related appears in medical (procedure) codes
CDI, insulin, oral record narrative (not
diabetes agents, ICD-9-CM coding)
digoxin)
* In 2015, MSPMS will be replaced by the Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS) for Health Systems, and AHRQ Common Formats utilized as the primary data collection
method.

Appendices
Table B2. Federal Systems for Conducting ADE SurveillanceFederal Health Systems
Agency BOP DOD DOD IHS VHA VHA
System N/A Pharmacovigilance Patient Safety Resource and VA ADERs Department of VA
Name Defense Application Reporting System Patient Integrated
System Management Databases
System (RPMS-EHR)
Active or Passive (voluntary) Active Passive (voluntary) Passive (voluntary) Passive (voluntary) Active
Passive?
Surveillance Inmates in facilities DOD (active duty, DOD (active duty, Federally recognized VHA VHA
Population under the supervision family members and family members and American Indians
of BOP retirees and family retirees and family and Alaska Natives
members) members)
System Quality improvement Signal generation Signal detection Signal detection Signal detection Signal detection
Focus Signal refinement Quality Quality Quality Quality
Signal evaluation improvement improvement improvement improvement
Quality Patient care
improvement
Setting of Inpatient Inpatient (all Inpatient (military Inpatient Inpatient (VHA Inpatient
Drug Outpatient ages) treatment Outpatient facilities) Outpatient
Exposure Outpatient (all facilities) Outpatient (VHA
ages) Outpatient facilities)
(military
treatment
facilities)
Geographic Regional BOP National DOD National DOD-run National IHS National VHA National VHA
Scope Facility Facility facilities Regional area Regional VHA Regional VHA
Service Facility level office VHA network VHA network
Service level Facility Facility Facility
Individual patient
care

Appendices
Table B2. Federal Systems for Conducting ADE SurveillanceFederal Health Systems (continued)
Agency BOP DOD DOD IHS VHA VHA
Data Spontaneous AE DOD EHRs Patient Safety RPMS-EHR Spontaneous AE VHA EHRs
Source(s) reports DOD Reporting System Adverse Reaction reports VHA
administrative Submitted Reports Tracking System administrative
claims Administrative claims
datasets
(Webcident)
Data EHR review Database queries Electronically Database queries Database queries Database queries
Collection (automated and ad submitted reports
Method hoc; updated
quarterly)
Case Review of cases with Algorithmic Patient Safety Algorithmic MedDRA codes Algorithmic
Identifica- prescribed medication detection using Reporting System detection using detection using
tion (anticoagulants) combination of collections on both ICD-9-CM codes ICD-9-CM codes
Method drug exposure/J- ADE and ADRs.* Clinic visits, ED Clinic visits, ED
code and ICD-9- ADE are classified as: visits, visits, and
CM/ CPT, LOINC death, severe hospitalizations hospitalizations
codes permanent harm, following drug following drug
Clinic visits, ED permanent harm, exposure exposure
visits, temporary harm,
hospitalizations, additional
and procedures treatment,
following drug emotional distress
exposure or
inconvenience, no
harm, near miss (did
not reach patient),
unsafe condition
* Adverse drug reaction (ADR): A subtype of an ADE that stems directly from taking an appropriate dose of the drug. ADEs also may be caused by a medication error, intentional
overdose, or other inappropriate use (of an otherwise appropriate drug).

Appendices
Abbreviations

AE adverse event
AMI acute myocardial infarction
AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
BOP Bureau of Prisons
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDI Clostridium difficile infection
CPT Current Procedural Terminology
DOD Department of Defense
ED emergency department
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FAERS FDA Adverse Event Reporting System
HCUP-NEDS Healthcare Cost and Utilization ProjectNationwide Emergency Department Sample
HCUP-NIS Healthcare Cost and Utilization ProjectNationwide Inpatient Sample
HF heart failure
ICD-9-CM International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification
IHS Indian Health Service
LOINC Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes
MPSMS Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System
NEISS-CADES National Electronic Injury Surveillance SystemCooperative Adverse Drug Events Surveillance System
POA present on admission
PTs MedDRA Preferred Terms
RPMS Resource and Patient Management System
SID State Inpatient Database
SMQs Standardized MedDRA Queries
VA ADERs VA Adverse Drug Event Database
VHA Veterans Health Administration

Affordable Care Act
APPENDIX
Health Care Delivery
C Models Relevant to ADE
Prevention
Table C1. Affordable Care Act Health Care Delivery Models Relevant to ADE Prevention
Term Definition
Patient- Patient-centered medical home is a care delivery model designed to improve quality of care
centered through better coordination, treating the many needs of the patient at once, increasing access,
medical home and empowering the patient to be a partner in his/her own care. Central attributes of PCMH
(PCMH) models of care include enhanced patient access to a regular source of primary care; stable and
ongoing relationships with a personal clinician who directs a care team; and timely, well-
organized health services that emphasize prevention and chronic care management. An
important feature of medical homes is enhanced payment in recognition of the infrastructure
needed to provide more services.
Evidence suggests that, on the whole, PCMHs improve patient experiences and outcomes by
increasing access to care, encouraging the receipt of recommended preventive services, and
facilitating better management of chronic conditions.
Source: Davis K et al. How the Affordable Care Act Will Strengthen the Nations Primary Care
Foundation. 2011. J Gen Intern Med, 26(10): 12011203.
Accountable An ACO refers to a group of providers and suppliers of services (e.g., hospitals, physicians, and
Care others involved in patient care) that will work together to coordinate care for the patients they
Organization serve with Original Medicare (that is, those who are not in a Medicare Advantage private plan).
(ACO) The goal of an ACO is to deliver seamless, high-quality care for Medicare beneficiaries. The ACO
would be a patient-centered organization in which the patient and providers are true partners
in care decisions.
The Affordable Care Act specifies that an ACO may include the following types of groups of
providers and suppliers of Medicare-covered services:
ACO professionals (i.e., physicians and other practitioners meeting the statutory definition)
in group practice arrangements
Networks of individual practices of ACO professionals
Partnerships or joint venture arrangements between hospitals and ACO professionals
Hospitals employing ACO professionals
Other Medicare providers and suppliers, as determined by the Secretary
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Learning Network. Summary of
Final Rule Provisions for Accountable Care Organizations under the Medicare Shared Savings
Program. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-
Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/ACO_Summary_Factsheet_ICN907404.pdf.
Accessed January 7, 2014.

Appendices
Table C1. Affordable Care Act Health Care Delivery Models Relevant to ADE Prevention (continued)
Term Definition
Team-based Implemented through ACOs and can be defined as:
health care The provision of health services to individuals, families, and/or their communities by at least
two health providers who work collaboratively with patients and their caregivers to the extent
preferred by each patientto accomplish shared goals within and across settings to achieve
coordinated, high-quality care.
Source: Mitchell P, Wynia M, Golden R et al. Core Principles & Values of Effective Team-Based
Health Care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Available at:
http://www.iom.edu/global/perspectives/2012/teambasedcare.aspx. Accessed January 7,
2014.

APPENDIX Overview of CMS Programs/Initiatives
With Potential To Advance ADE
D Prevention
Table D1. Overview of CMS Programs and Initiatives That Support ADE Prevention
ADE Targets (Anticoagulants,
Program/Initiative Description General ADEs Addressed Diabetes Agents, Opioids) Opportunities
Specifically Addressed?
Regulatory Oversight Blank Blank Blank Blank
Conditions of Federal health and Hospital CoPs Long-term Care Opportunity for
Participation (CoPs), safety requirements Policies/procedures to minimize errors Specific use/guidelines for improving ADE
Conditions for for hospitals and related to drugs - Anticoagulants prevention practices
Coverage (CfCs), and other providers and Report errors - Diabetes agents
long-term care facility suppliers Require internal process to track adverse - Opioids
(LTCF) requirements All Medicare- and events (including ADEs), analyze cause,
Medicaid- and implement preventive actions
participating Critical Access Hospital CoPs
providers to be in Report adverse drug and drug
compliance administration errors
Long-Term Care CoPs
Free of medication errors >5%
Free of ALL significant medication errors
Drug regimens not include unnecessary
drugs
Home Health Agency CoPs
Drug regimen review
Focus on adverse effects, drug
interactions, duplicate drugs,
noncompliance

Appendices
Table D1. Overview of CMS Programs and Initiatives That Support ADE Prevention (continued)
Regulatory Oversight Blank Blank Blank Blank
Survey & Certification Assess compliance Guidelines and policy memos related to No Opportunity for
with CoPs and CfCs prevention of ADEs improving ADE
prevention practices
Value-Based Blank Blank Blank Blank
Purchasing Financial
Incentives
Hospital Inpatient Hospitals required to No No Opportunity for
Quality Reporting report quality development of
Program measures or subject quality measures
to payment reduction specific to the ADE
Measures are publicly targets
reported on CMS
Web site
Incentives
Physician Quality Eligible professionals Measure #46Medication Reconciliation Measure #380ADE Opportunity for
Reporting System receive incentive Prevention and Monitoring: development of
Measure #130Documentation of Current
payment for meeting Warfarin Time in Therapeutic quality measures
Medications in the Medical Record
satisfactory reporting Range specific to the ADE
criteria for quality Measure #176Rheumatoid Arthritis: targets
measures. Tuberculosis Screening
Beginning in 2015, Measure #238Use of High-Risk
eligible professionals Medications in the Elderly
who do not meet
satisfactory reporting Measure #271Inflammatory Bowel
criteria of quality Disease: Preventive Care: Corticosteroid-
measures will be Related Iatrogenic InjuryBone Loss
subject to payment Assessment
adjustment.

Appendices
Measure #274Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: Testing for Latent Tuberculosis
Before Initiating Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor
Therapy
Measure #275Inflammatory Bowel
Disease: Assessment of Hepatitis B Virus
Status Before Initiating Anti-Tumor Necrosis
Factor Therapy
Measure #337Tuberculosis Prevention for
Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Patients on a
Biological Immune Response Modifier
Hospital-Based Value Increased payment No No Opportunity to include
Purchasing for hospitals ADE measures in
demonstrating high future years
quality
Penalties for hospitals
demonstrating poor
quality
Value-Based
Incentives
Medicare and Medicaid Incentive payments Providers must maintain active Specific clinical quality Opportunity for
Electronic Health for hospitals and medication list, implement drugdrug measures related to ADEs: incorporation of
Record (EHR) Incentive eligible professionals and drugallergy interaction checks, and Warfarin Time in quality measures
Programs that demonstrate implement clinical decision support rules. Therapeutic Range specific to the ADE
meaningful use of a EHR Stage 2 Meaningful Use Clinical VTE discharge instructions for targets as part of EHR
certified EHR Quality Measure: Use of high-risk patients on warfarin requirements and
technology medications in older adults tools (e.g., Clinical
Use of high-risk medications in older Decision Support)
adults

Appendices
Physician Feedback Produce annual No No Opportunity for
Program and Value- physician feedback development of
Based Payment reports quality measures
Modifier Physician Fee specific to the ADE
Schedule payment targets
modified based on
quality of care
compared with costs
Incentives
Health Care Innovation Supports 47 projects provide medication No Opportunities to
Awards organizations using reconciliation or management services. address ADEs in future
new ideas to enhance rounds of funding
quality and reduce
cost to Medicare,
Medicaid, CHIP
recipients.
Pioneer Accountable Shared savings Many ACOs have participated in efforts to No Opportunities to
Care Organizations payment model enhance drug safety, including use of enhance Pioneer ACO
(ACOs) focusing on barcoding, computerized provider order efforts to reduce ADEs
population-based entry (CPOE), medicine decision support,
health public reporting.
Multi-Payer Advanced State-level multi- Two States focus on medication safety No Opportunities to
Primary Care Practice payer reforms to through clinical pharmacy, case expand ADE efforts
expand advanced management, efforts to reduce into additional States
primary care practices medication errors and complications, use
Primary Care Medical of electronic data system for managing
Homes (PCMHs) pharmacy care.
receive monthly care
management fees for
Medicare.

Appendices
Community-Based Care Models to improve All sites provide medication No Opportunities to
Transitions Program care transitions reconciliation. enhance focus on
Goals: reduce ADEs
readmissions,
improve quality, save
cost
Transparency and Blank Blank Blank Blank
Associated Incentives
Hospital Compare Consumer-oriented Some hospitals voluntarily report data on No Opportunities to
Web site providing ADEs. include measures
information on related to ADEs
hospital quality
Physician Compare Consumer-oriented No No Opportunities to
Web site providing include measures
information on related to the specific
physician quality and ADE targets
patient experience
Quality measures
including those
reported under the
Physician Quality
Reporting System
(PQRS)

Appendices
Related Initiatives Blank Blank Blank Blank
Addressing ADEs
Initiative To Reduce Interventions to Coordinating management of prescription No Opportunity to expand
Avoidable enhance care drugs to reduce risk of ADEs focus to include
Hospitalizations Among coordination for long- specific drug classes
Nursing Facility stay nursing facility
Residents residents
Goals: Reduce
avoidable hospital
transfers or
readmissions, improve
quality, lower costs,
increase patient safety
Addressing ADEs
Quality Improvement Network of Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Reporting on Blank
Organizations organizations focused Services Collaborative focuses on The rate of Adverse Drug
on improving quality improving quality and safety among high- Events
of care for Medicare risk patients, increasing medication The potential Adverse
beneficiaries therapy management, detecting pADEs Drug Events
and ADEs and reporting on ADEs. Number of beneficiaries
Improving Care Transitions and on warfarin with Interna-
Readmissions focuses on improving tional Normalized Ratio
effectiveness of pharmacotherapies, (INR) in controlled range
increasing patient understanding of Rate of beneficiaries on
medications, detecting ADEs. warfarin that have INR
monitored monthly
Rate of beneficiaries with
HbA1c >9%
Rate of beneficiaries
prescribed a potentially
inappropriate
antipsychotic medication

Appendices
Addressing ADEs
Medicare Part D/Opioid Part D sponsors are Opioid overutilization in Part D Partially; Part D beneficiaries Sponsors may employ
Overutilization Policy expected to conduct meeting threshold for MTM to address
retrospective drug potential opioid use; opioid opioid overutilization.
utilization review and policy not applicable to
engage in case other ADEs (anticoagulants
management for and diabetes agents)
beneficiaries meeting
threshold for
potential opioid
overutilization; Part D
sponsors are also
expected to employ
appropriate controls
on coverage of
opioids (safety edits,
quantity limits).
Regional Chief Medical Serve as CMS liaison Provide education on identification and Importance of controlled
Officers with medical reduction of ADEs. blood pressure and
community. Participate in intra-agency programs, management of diabetes;
including Prescription Drug Monitoring appropriate use of
Program. antipsychotics in nursing
Present on importance of reducing ADEs home; and medication
across region. reconciliation
Work on appropriate use of Educate health care
antipsychotics in nursing homes. professionals about specific
ADE targets on ad hoc basis.

Appendices
Addressing ADEs
National Coverage Determines coverage Two determinations directly relate to Medicare coverage for home Opportunities to
Determination policies for Medicare prevention of ADEs. prothrombin time testing to expand coverage
services and help patients on warfarin determinations to
equipment who may be out of further target
therapeutic range reduction in ADEs
Pharmacogenomic testing to
inform physicians of gene
variations that might
increase or decrease
patients reaction to
warfarin
Coverage for home blood
glucose monitoring
Coverage for testing blood
glucose levels in pharmacy
State Medicaid Drug State Medicaid Drug utilization review looks for Depends on State Opportunity to reach
Monitoring agencies use duplication, contraindications, incorrect out to States to focus
electronic monitoring dosage or duration. on ADEs related to
system to screen specific drug classes
prescription drug
claims.

Appendices
Abbreviations
ACO Accountable Care Organization

CfC Condition for Coverage
CHIP Childrens Health Insurance Program
CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
CPOE Computerized Provider Order Entry
CoP Condition of Participation
HbA1c Hemoglobin A1c
INR international normalized ratio
MTM medication therapy management
pADEs potential adverse drug events
PCMH Primary Care Medical Home
PQRS Physician Quality Reporting System
VTE venous thromboembolism

2014

US - National Action Plan For Adverse Drug Event Prevention

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationNational Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

US - National Action Plan For Adverse Drug Event Prevention

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US - National Action Plan For Adverse Drug Event Prevention

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natio nal Ac tio n Plan for

Advers e Drug Event

Howard Koh, M.D., M.P.H.

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | iii

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | iv

Health Information Technology (Health IT).......................................................................................... 80

Figure 1. Terms Relevant to Drug-Related Harm ......................................................................................... 5

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | v

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | vi

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | vii

ACL Administration for Community Living

AACE American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | viii

AMDA American Medical Directors Association

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | ix

HVBP Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | x

PC-PTSD Primary Care-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | xi

The three initial targets of the ADE Action Plan are

Diabetes agents (primary ADE of concern: hypoglycemia)

Opioids (primary ADE of concern: accidental overdoses/oversedation /respiratory depression)

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 1

3) Incentives and OversightExplore opportunities, including financial incentives and oversight

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 2

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 3

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 4

Adverse Drug Events: Magnitude of the Problem

ADE Prevention Is a Patient Safety Priority

Figure 1. Terms Relevant to Drug-Related Harm [2]

Adverse Drug Events

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 5

Focus on High-Impact Targets and Populations

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 6

Medication Classes Most Commonly Implicated in ADEs

Most Vulnerable Populations

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 7

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 8

Underserved and Rural Communities

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 9

Federal Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups for ADEs

The Call for Action

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 10

Structuring the ADE Action Plan

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 11

Abbreviations: Health IT = health information technology

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 12

1. Kohn L T, Corrigan J M, Donaldson MS (Institute of Medicine). To err is human: building a safer

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 13

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 14

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 15

Scope of the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention

National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention | 16

Framework for the National Action Plan for ADE Prevention

2) Informed Patient and Family Engagement

3) Communication and Care Coordination

4) Science-Driven Prevention and Treatment