Skip to main content

Trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) is an undesirable effect of a drug beyond its anticipated therapeutic effects occurring during clinical use, and is one of the major causes of iatrogenic disease. ADRs cause significant morbidity and mortality and increase the length of hospital stays. The economic burden of ADRs on the British NHS is also high, accounting for considerable extra NHS costs. A recent study by Dr Tai-Yin Wu and colleagues published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine examined hospital admissions associated with ADRs in all NHS English hospitals in the past 10 years, using the Hospital Episode Statistics database.

Between 1999 and 2008, there were 557,978 ADR-associated admissions, representing 0.9% of total hospital admissions. Over this period the annual number of ADRs increased by 76.8% (from 42,453 to 75,076), and in-hospital mortality rate increased by 10% (from 4.3% to 4.7%). In 2008, there were 6,830,067 emergency admissions of which 75,076 (1.1%) were drug-related. Systemic agents were most commonly implicated (19.2%), followed by analgesics (13.3%) and cardiovascular drugs (12.9%).There has been a near two-fold increase in nephropathy and cardiovascular consequences secondary to drugs and a 6.8% fall in mental and behavioural disorders due to drugs.

The study confirmed that ADRs have a major impact on public health, with the number of ADR admissions due to ADRs increasing at a greater rate than the increase in total hospital admissions. In-hospital mortality due to ADR admissions also increased during the study period. These findings should prompt policymakers to implement further measures to reduce ADR incidence and their associated in-hospital mortality, and develop educational interventions to improve the recording of ADRs by clinicians.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
1 comment
Read more