Pharmaceutical Outcomes Programme, Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. firstname.lastname@example.org
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) rank as the fifth leading cause of death in the western world. The nature and scope of these ADRs in children are not predictable based on post market surveillance reports that rely heavily on adult drug experience. The genotype-specific approaches to therapy in childhood (GATC) national ADR network was established to identify specific ADRs and to improve drug safety through identification of predictive genomic biomarkers of drug risk.
GATC set out to establish a national network of trained surveillance clinicians in pediatric hospitals across Canada. Surveillance clinicians identified, enrolled, and collected clinical data and biological samples from ADR cases and controls. Surveillance was targeted to three ADRs: anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity, cisplatin-induced hearing impairment, and codeine-induced mortality in breastfed infants.
The initial surveillance site was established in September 2005, with 10 sites fully operational by 2008. In 3 years, GATC enrolled 1836 ADR cases and 13188 controls. Target numbers were achieved for anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Modified target numbers were nearly attained for cisplatin-induced hearing impairment. Codeine-induced infant mortality in a breastfed infant was discovered by GATC investigators. A case-control study was subsequently conducted.
GATC has demonstrated a model of active and targeted surveillance that builds an important step toward the goal of personalized medicine for children. Effective communication, site-specific solutions and long-term sustainability across the network are critical to maintain participation and productivity. GATC may provide a framework of ADR surveillance that can be adapted by other countries and healthcare systems.
There are few validated measures of organizational context and none that we located are parsimonious and address modifiable characteristics of context. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was developed to meet this need. The instrument assesses 8 dimensions of context, which comprise 10 concepts. The purpose of this paper is to report evidence to further the validity argument for ACT. The specific objectives of this paper are to: (1) examine the extent to which the 10 ACT concepts discriminate between patient care units and (2) identify variables that significantly contribute to between-unit variation for each of the 10 concepts.
859 professional nurses (844 valid responses) working in medical, surgical and critical care units of 8 Canadian pediatric hospitals completed the ACT. A random intercept, fixed effects hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) strategy was used to quantify and explain variance in the 10 ACT concepts to establish the ACT's ability to discriminate between units. We ran 40 models (a series of 4 models for each of the 10 concepts) in which we systematically assessed the unique contribution (i.e., error variance reduction) of different variables to between-unit variation. First, we constructed a null model in which we quantified the variance overall, in each of the concepts. Then we controlled for the contribution of individual level variables (Model 1). In Model 2, we assessed the contribution of practice specialty (medical, surgical, critical care) to variation since it was central to construction of the sampling frame for the study. Finally, we assessed the contribution of additional unit level variables (Model 3).
The null model (unadjusted baseline HLM model) established that there was significant variation between units in each of the 10 ACT concepts (i.e., discrimination between units). When we controlled for individual characteristics, significant variation in the 10 concepts remained. Assessment of the contribution of specialty to between-unit variation enabled us to explain more variance (1.19% to 16.73%) in 6 of the 10 ACT concepts. Finally, when we assessed the unique contribution of the unit level variables available to us, we were able to explain additional variance (15.91% to 73.25%) in 7 of the 10 ACT concepts.
The findings reported here represent the third published argument for validity of the ACT and adds to the evidence supporting its use to discriminate patient care units by all 10 contextual factors. We found evidence of relationships between a variety of individual and unit-level variables that explained much of this between-unit variation for each of the 10 ACT concepts. Future research will include examination of the relationships between the ACT's contextual factors and research utilization by nurses and ultimately the relationships between context, research utilization, and outcomes for patients.
Cites: Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2009;6(1):27-3519207560
Cites: Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-3014568747
Cites: BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:23420003531
Cites: Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2010;24(1):9-2420333909
Cites: Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2010;24(1):35-5520333911
Cites: Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Jan;48(1):81-9320598308
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:10721767378
Cites: J Adv Nurs. 2002 Apr;38(1):94-10411895535
Cites: Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003 Nov;29(11):575-8514619350
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Apr;16(2):107-2315051705
Cites: Qual Health Care. 1998 Sep;7(3):149-5810185141