Literature DB >> 15351924

Requirements for a successful implementation of drug interaction information systems in general practice: results of a questionnaire survey in Germany.

Verena Bergk1, Christiane Gasse, Rainer Schnell, Walter E Haefeli.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine drug interaction information requirements in general practice with respect to both content and mode of presentation.
METHODS: In a mail survey among 2,000 general practitioners in south-west Germany, we collected information on risk evaluation of drug interactions and combinations of concern, usage of and satisfaction with the current information sources, desirable content and mode of future presentation and demographic variables. Categorical variables were compared using chi2 test. Trends were analysed with Cochran-Armitage test and determinants of literature usage with logistic regression.
RESULTS: Response rate was 60.8%. The majority of general practitioners considered drug interactions a risk factor in prescribing (88.6%). For 18.2% of the drug combinations most frequently indicated as interacting, there was no published evidence of a clinically relevant interaction. More than half of the participants were dissatisfied with the information on severity, mechanism, and dose adjustment currently available in their sources. In particular, non-interacting alternatives were thought to be lacking (86.9%). Users of drug interaction software more frequently retrieved drug interaction information than non-users [odds ratio (OR) 1.95; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.50, 2.52], but only 28.6% of general practitioners had access to such systems. There was a significant trend towards electronic sources among younger physicians, but at present, 41.7% of general practitioners favour printed sources, and 8.8% would refuse to use electronic sources.
CONCLUSION: General practitioners wish for more informative support on drug interactions, especially concerning management. Despite a trend towards electronic information sources, printed documents are presently still required to reach all prescribers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15351924     DOI: 10.1007/s00228-004-0812-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   2.953


  21 in total

1.  Drug Interactions: A Source Book of Adverse Interactions, Their Mechanisms, Clinical Importance and Management.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-11-07       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  [German physicians' access to professional knowledge. Acceptance, quality and availability of professional information with special reference to electronic information media].

Authors:  Carl-Michael Reng; Hans-Jürgen Friedrich; Antje Timmer; Jürgen Schölmerich
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  2003-11-15

3.  Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality.

Authors:  David W Bates; Gilad J Kuperman; Samuel Wang; Tejal Gandhi; Anne Kittler; Lynn Volk; Cynthia Spurr; Ramin Khorasani; Milenko Tanasijevic; Blackford Middleton
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003-08-04       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  The medical office of the 21st century (MOXXI): effectiveness of computerized decision-making support in reducing inappropriate prescribing in primary care.

Authors:  Robyn Tamblyn; Allen Huang; Robert Perreault; André Jacques; Denis Roy; James Hanley; Peter McLeod; Réjean Laprise
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-09-16       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Incorrect overdose management advice in the Physicians' Desk Reference.

Authors:  W H Mullen; I B Anderson; S Y Kim; P D Blanc; K R Olson
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.721

6.  Preventing drug interactions by online prescription screening in community pharmacies and medical practices.

Authors:  H Halkin; I Katzir; I Kurman; J Jan; B B Malkin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.875

7.  Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug toxicity.

Authors:  David N Juurlink; Muhammad Mamdani; Alexander Kopp; Andreas Laupacis; Donald A Redelmeier
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-04-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  General practitioners' use of computers during the consultation.

Authors:  C Watkins; I Harvey; C Langley; A Faulkner; S Gray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Improving recognition of drug interactions: benefits and barriers to using automated drug alerts.

Authors:  Peter A Glassman; Barbara Simon; Pamela Belperio; Andrew Lanto
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Frequency of hospitalization after exposure to known drug-drug interactions in a Medicaid population.

Authors:  R A Hamilton; L L Briceland; M H Andritz
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  1998 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.705

View more
  17 in total

1.  Management of potential drug interactions in community pharmacies: a questionnaire-based survey in Switzerland.

Authors:  Jörg Indermitte; Laura Erba; Marianne Beutler; Rudolf Bruppacher; Walter E Haefeli; Kurt E Hersberger
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  The frequency of inappropriate tablet splitting in primary care.

Authors:  R Quinzler; C Gasse; A Schneider; P Kaufmann-Kolle; J Szecsenyi; W E Haefeli
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  Assessment of the consistency among three drug compendia in listing and ranking of drug-drug interactions.

Authors:  Božana S Nikolić; Maja S Ilić
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.363

4.  Checklist for standardized reporting of drug-drug interaction management guidelines.

Authors:  Annemieke Floor-Schreudering; Arjen F J Geerts; Jeffrey K Aronson; Marcel L Bouvy; Robin E Ferner; Peter A G M De Smet
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Clarity and applicability of drug-drug interaction management guidelines: a systematic appraisal by general practitioners and community pharmacists in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Annemieke Floor-Schreudering; Peter A G M De Smet; Henk Buurma; Sonia Amini; Marcel L Bouvy
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  An evaluation of the completeness of drug-drug interaction-related information in package inserts.

Authors:  Giok Qin Ng; Grant Edward Sklar; Hui Ting Chng
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-10-29       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  Dose individualisation in patients with renal insufficiency: does drug labelling support optimal management?

Authors:  Meret Martin-Facklam; Jens Rengelshausen; Yorki Tayrouz; Nahal Ketabi-Kiyanvash; Heike Lindenmaier; Verena Schneider; Verena Bergk; Walter E Haefeli
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Presenting multiple drug alerts in an ambulatory electronic prescribing system: a usability study of novel prototypes.

Authors:  M Xie; M B Weinger; W M Gregg; K B Johnson
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.342

9.  Comparative performance of two drug interaction screening programmes analysing a cross-sectional prescription dataset of 84,625 psychiatric inpatients.

Authors:  Olesya I Zorina; Patrick Haueis; Waldemar Greil; Renate Grohmann; Gerd A Kullak-Ublick; Stefan Russmann
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Interpretation of clinical guidelines for poisoned patients: positive and negative effects of standard phrases used in TOXBASE.

Authors:  W S Waring; S H McDonald; A M Good; L D Gordon; D N Bateman
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.