Arwa Benkhaial1, Jens Kaltschmidt1, Elke Weisshaar2, Thomas L Diepgen2, Walter E Haefeli3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine VI, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Clinical Social Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine VI, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. walter.emil.haefeli@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Allergies to drugs are a major cause for hospitalisation and inappropriate prescriptions to patients. However, allergies can be prevented if the patient's history of drug allergy is known and coded. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: Assessment of the value of the widely used ICD-10 codes for drug-allergies (e.g. Z88, L27) as triggers for decision support in an electronic prescription system and evaluation of the potential impact of such an alert system. We also evaluated the usefulness of manual drug allergy notes recorded in patients' charts in the prevention of prescribing errors due to drug allergies. SETTING: University hospital providing primary and tertiary care. METHODS: Using Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification codes we allocated to drug specifying ICD-10 codes (i.e. Z88) all drugs belonging to the same group of compounds or those known to induce cross-allergy. In a randomly selected cohort of 200 in-patients we then assessed documentation and coding of drug allergies and incident prescribing errors ignoring patients' drug allergies. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 200 patients had an allergy-related ICD code in the chart, 51 had a written note, and 13 had both. About 21% of patients with documented drug allergies were prescribed a drug potentially triggering the allergy. There was no difference in prescribing errors due to drugs potentially inducing allergies when the allergy was only documented as an ICD-10 code or the information was available in the paper record (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study emphasise the necessity of a more precise and efficient documentation system of drug allergies along with the implementation of an electronic CDS for drug allergies that makes physicians aware of patients' drug allergies during the prescribing process.
INTRODUCTION:Allergies to drugs are a major cause for hospitalisation and inappropriate prescriptions to patients. However, allergies can be prevented if the patient's history of drug allergy is known and coded. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: Assessment of the value of the widely used ICD-10 codes for drug-allergies (e.g. Z88, L27) as triggers for decision support in an electronic prescription system and evaluation of the potential impact of such an alert system. We also evaluated the usefulness of manual drug allergy notes recorded in patients' charts in the prevention of prescribing errors due to drug allergies. SETTING: University hospital providing primary and tertiary care. METHODS: Using Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification codes we allocated to drug specifying ICD-10 codes (i.e. Z88) all drugs belonging to the same group of compounds or those known to induce cross-allergy. In a randomly selected cohort of 200 in-patients we then assessed documentation and coding of drug allergies and incident prescribing errors ignoring patients' drug allergies. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 200 patients had an allergy-related ICD code in the chart, 51 had a written note, and 13 had both. About 21% of patients with documented drug allergies were prescribed a drug potentially triggering the allergy. There was no difference in prescribing errors due to drugs potentially inducing allergies when the allergy was only documented as an ICD-10 code or the information was available in the paper record (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study emphasise the necessity of a more precise and efficient documentation system of drug allergies along with the implementation of an electronic CDS for drug allergies that makes physicians aware of patients' drug allergies during the prescribing process.
Authors: A Novalbos; J Sastre; J Cuesta; M De Las Heras; M Lluch-Bernal; C Bombín; S Quirce Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: F Fiszenson-Albala; V Auzerie; E Mahe; R Farinotti; C Durand-Stocco; B Crickx; V Descamps Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Michael J Wasserman; Deborah A Weber; Judith A Guthrie; Vivian P Bykerk; Peter Lee; Edward C Keystone Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Carolien M J van der Linden; Paul A F Jansen; René J E Grouls; Rob J van Marum; Marianne A J W Verberne; Lieke M A Aussems; Toine C G Egberts; Erik H M Korsten Journal: Ther Adv Drug Saf Date: 2013-04
Authors: Lorna Barton; Judith Futtermenger; Yash Gaddi; Angela Kang; Jon Rivers; David Spriggs; Paul F Jenkins; Campbell H Thompson; Josephine S Thomas Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.659
Authors: Laura Légat; Sven Van Laere; Marc Nyssen; Stephane Steurbaut; Alain G Dupont; Pieter Cornu Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Majed Al Jeraisy; Shaden Al Osaimi; Abdullah Al Hawas; Alanoud Muamar; Lamia Aleidi; Njoud Khonain; Mostafa A Abolfotouh Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Corinne M Hohl; Andrei Karpov; Lisa Reddekopp; Mimi Doyle-Waters; Jürgen Stausberg Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 4.497