English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives:   In 2012, a consensus document was developed on drug overdose poisoning definitions. We took the opportunity to apply these new definitions to health care administrative data in 4 states. Our objective was to calculate and compare drug (particularly opioid) poisoning rates in these 4 states for 4 selected Injury Surveillance Workgroup 7 (ISW7) drug poisoning indicators, using 2 ISW7 surveillance definitions, Option A and Option B. We also identified factors related to the health care administrative data used by each state that might contribute to poisoning rate variations.Methods:   We used state-level hospital and emergency department (ED) discharge data to calculate age-adjusted rates for 4 drug poisoning indicators (acute drug poisonings, acute opioid poisonings, acute opioid analgesic poisonings, and acute or chronic opioid poisonings) using just the principal diagnosis or first-listed external cause-of-injury fields (Option A) or using all diagnosis or external cause-of-injury fields (Option B). We also calculated the high-to-low poisoning rate ratios to measure rate variations.Results:   The average poisoning rates per 100 000 population for the 4 ISW7 poisoning indicators ranged from 11.2 to 216.4 (ED) and from 14.2 to 212.8 (hospital). For each indicator, ED rates were usually higher than were hospital rates. High-to-low rate ratios between states were lowest for the acute drug poisoning indicator (range, 1.5-1.6). Factors potentially contributing to rate variations included administrative data structure, accessibility, and submission regulations.Conclusions:   The ISW7 Option B surveillance definition is needed to fully capture the state burden of opioid poisonings. Efforts to control for factors related to administrative data, standardize data sources on a national level, and improve data source accessibility for state health departments would improve the accuracy of drug poisoning surveillance.

Assessment of Selected Overdose Poisoning Indicators in Health Care Administrative Data in 4 States, 2012