Literature DB >> 19786683

Clinicians' assessments of electronic medication safety alerts in ambulatory care.

Saul N Weingart1, Brett Simchowitz, Lawrence Shiman, Daniela Brouillard, Adrienne Cyrulik, Roger B Davis, Thomas Isaac, Michael Massagli, Laurinda Morway, Daniel Z Sands, Justin Spencer, Joel S Weissman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) systems with drug interaction and allergy alerts promise to improve medication safety in ambulatory care, clinicians often override these safety features. We undertook a study of respondents' satisfaction with e-prescribing systems, their perceptions of alerts, and their perceptions of behavior changes resulting from alerts.
METHODS: Random sample survey of 300 Massachusetts ambulatory care clinicians who used a commercial e-prescribing system.
RESULTS: A total of 184 respondents completed the survey (61%). Respondents indicated that e-prescribing improved the quality of care delivered (78%), prevented medical errors (83%), and enhanced patient satisfaction (71%) and clinician efficiency (75%). In addition, 35% of prescribers said that electronic alerts caused them to modify a potentially dangerous prescription in the last 30 days. They suggested that alerts also led to other changes in clinical care: counseling patients about potential reactions (49% of respondents), looking up information in medical references (44%), and changing the way a patient was monitored (33%). Altogether, 63% of clinicians reported taking action other than discontinuing or modifying an alerted prescription in the previous month in response to alerts. Despite these benefits, fewer than half of respondents were satisfied with drug interaction and allergy alerts (47%). Problems included alerts triggered by discontinued medications (58%), alerts that failed to account for appropriate drug combinations (46%), and excessive volume of alerts (37%).
CONCLUSION: Although clinicians were critical of the quality of e-prescribing alerts, alerts may lead to clinically significant modifications in patient management not readily apparent based on "acceptance" rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19786683     DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.300

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  32 in total

1.  Randomized clinical trial of a customized electronic alert requiring an affirmative response compared to a control group receiving a commercial passive CPOE alert: NSAID--warfarin co-prescribing as a test case.

Authors:  Brian L Strom; Rita Schinnar; Warren Bilker; Sean Hennessy; Charles E Leonard; Eric Pifer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 2.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups' perceptions.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Édith-Romy Nsangou; Julie Payne-Gagnon; Sonya Grenier; Claude Sicotte
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Drug-drug interactions that should be non-interruptive in order to reduce alert fatigue in electronic health records.

Authors:  Shobha Phansalkar; Heleen van der Sijs; Alisha D Tucker; Amrita A Desai; Douglas S Bell; Jonathan M Teich; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  E-PRESCRIBING AND PATIENT SAFETY: RESULTS FROM A MIXED METHOD STUDY.

Authors:  Kate L Lapane; Molly E Waring; Catherine Dubé; Karen L Schneider
Journal:  Am J Pharm Benefits       Date:  2011

5.  Development and validation of a survey instrument for assessing prescribers' perception of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts.

Authors:  Kai Zheng; Kathleen Fear; Bruce W Chaffee; Christopher R Zimmerman; Edward M Karls; Justin D Gatwood; James G Stevenson; Mark D Pearlman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Towards meaningful medication-related clinical decision support: recommendations for an initial implementation.

Authors:  S Phansalkar; A Wright; G J Kuperman; A J Vaida; A M Bobb; R A Jenders; T H Payne; J Halamka; M Bloomrosen; D W Bates
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  Comparative evaluation of three clinical decision support systems: prospective screening for medication errors in 100 medical inpatients.

Authors:  Daniela Fritz; Alessandro Ceschi; Ivanka Curkovic; Martin Huber; Marco Egbring; Gerd A Kullak-Ublick; Stefan Russmann
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Evaluating the Impact of Interruptive Alerts within a Health System: Use, Response Time, and Cumulative Time Burden.

Authors:  Pierre Elias; Eric Peterson; Bob Wachter; Cary Ward; Eric Poon; Ann Marie Navar
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 9.  Assessing cardiovascular drug safety for clinical decision-making.

Authors:  Raymond L Woosley; Klaus Romero
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 32.419

10.  Improving electronic oral chemotherapy prescription: can we build a safer system?

Authors:  Saul N Weingart; Thea Mattsson; Junya Zhu; Lawrence N Shulman; Michael Hassett
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 3.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.