BACKGROUND: Studies that have looked at the effectiveness of computerized decision support systems to prevent drug-drug interactions have reported modest results because of low response by the providers to the automated alerts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, within an inpatient computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system, the incremental effectiveness of an alert that required a response from the provider, intended as a stronger intervention to prevent concurrent orders of warfarin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial of 1963 clinicians assigned to either an intervention group receiving a customized electronic alert requiring affirmative response or a control group receiving a commercially available passive alert as part of the CPOE. The study duration was 2 August 2006 to 15 December 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Alert adherence was compared between study groups. RESULTS: The proportion of desired ordering responses (ie, not reordering the alert-triggering drug after firing) was lower in the intervention group (114/464 (25%) customized alerts issued) than in the control group (154/560 (28%) passive alerts firing). The adjusted OR of inappropriate ordering was 1.22 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.16). CONCLUSION: A customized CPOE alert that required a provider response had no effect in reducing concomitant prescribing of NSAIDs and warfarin beyond that of the commercially available passive alert received by the control group. New CPOE alerts cannot be assumed to be effective in improving prescribing, and need evaluation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies that have looked at the effectiveness of computerized decision support systems to prevent drug-drug interactions have reported modest results because of low response by the providers to the automated alerts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, within an inpatient computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system, the incremental effectiveness of an alert that required a response from the provider, intended as a stronger intervention to prevent concurrent orders of warfarin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial of 1963 clinicians assigned to either an intervention group receiving a customized electronic alert requiring affirmative response or a control group receiving a commercially available passive alert as part of the CPOE. The study duration was 2 August 2006 to 15 December 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Alert adherence was compared between study groups. RESULTS: The proportion of desired ordering responses (ie, not reordering the alert-triggering drug after firing) was lower in the intervention group (114/464 (25%) customized alerts issued) than in the control group (154/560 (28%) passive alerts firing). The adjusted OR of inappropriate ordering was 1.22 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.16). CONCLUSION: A customized CPOE alert that required a provider response had no effect in reducing concomitant prescribing of NSAIDs and warfarin beyond that of the commercially available passive alert received by the control group. New CPOE alerts cannot be assumed to be effective in improving prescribing, and need evaluation.
Authors: James Judge; Terry S Field; Martin DeFlorio; Jane Laprino; Jill Auger; Paula Rochon; David W Bates; Jerry H Gurwitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Amy J Grizzle; Maysaa H Mahmood; Yu Ko; John E Murphy; Edward P Armstrong; Grant H Skrepnek; William N Jones; Gregory P Schepers; W Paul Nichol; Antoun Houranieh; Donna C Dare; Christopher T Hoey; Daniel C Malone Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Adrianne C Feldstein; David H Smith; Nancy Perrin; Xiuhai Yang; Steven R Simon; Michael Krall; Dean F Sittig; Diane Ditmer; Richard Platt; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-05-08
Authors: Steven R Simon; David H Smith; Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; Xiuhai Yang; Yvonne Zhou; Richard Platt; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sharon Conroy; Dimah Sweis; Claire Planner; Vincent Yeung; Jacqueline Collier; Linda Haines; Ian C K Wong Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Marsha A Raebel; Nikki M Carroll; Julia A Kelleher; Elizabeth A Chester; Sally Berga; David J Magid Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kate L Lapane; Molly E Waring; Karen L Schneider; Catherine Dubé; Brian J Quilliam Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: F Perry Wilson; Michael Shashaty; Jeffrey Testani; Iram Aqeel; Yuliya Borovskiy; Susan S Ellenberg; Harold I Feldman; Hilda Fernandez; Yevgeniy Gitelman; Jennie Lin; Dan Negoianu; Chirag R Parikh; Peter P Reese; Richard Urbani; Barry Fuchs Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Francis Perry Wilson; Peter P Reese; Michael Gs Shashaty; Susan S Ellenberg; Yevgeniy Gitelman; Amar D Bansal; Richard Urbani; Harold I Feldman; Barry Fuchs Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 2.486