OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a real-time computerized decision support tool in the emergency department that guides medication dosing for the elderly on physician ordering behavior and on adverse drug events (ADEs). DESIGN: A prospective controlled trial was conducted over 26 weeks. The status of the decision support tool alternated OFF (7/17/06-8/29/06), ON (8/29/06-10/10/06), OFF (10/10/06-11/28/06), and ON (11/28/06-1/16/07) in consecutive blocks during the study period. In patients ≥65 who were ordered certain benzodiazepines, opiates, non-steroidals, or sedative-hypnotics, the computer application either adjusted the dosing or suggested a different medication. Physicians could accept or reject recommendations. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome compared medication ordering consistent with recommendations during ON versus OFF periods. Secondary outcomes included the admission rate, emergency department length of stay for discharged patients, 10-fold dosing orders, use of a second drug to reverse the original medication, and rate of ADEs using previously validated explicit chart review. RESULTS: 2398 orders were placed for 1407 patients over 1548 visits. The majority (49/53; 92.5%) of recommendations for alternate medications were declined. More orders were consistent with dosing recommendations during ON (403/1283; 31.4%) than OFF (256/1115; 23%) periods (p≤0.0001). 673 (43%) visits were reviewed for ADEs. The rate of ADEs was lower during ON (8/237; 3.4%) compared with OFF (31/436; 7.1%) periods (p=0.02). The remaining secondary outcomes showed no difference. LIMITATIONS: Single institution study, retrospective chart review for ADEs. CONCLUSION: Though overall agreement with recommendations was low, real-time computerized decision support resulted in greater acceptance of medication recommendations. Fewer ADEs were observed when computerized decision support was active.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a real-time computerized decision support tool in the emergency department that guides medication dosing for the elderly on physician ordering behavior and on adverse drug events (ADEs). DESIGN: A prospective controlled trial was conducted over 26 weeks. The status of the decision support tool alternated OFF (7/17/06-8/29/06), ON (8/29/06-10/10/06), OFF (10/10/06-11/28/06), and ON (11/28/06-1/16/07) in consecutive blocks during the study period. In patients ≥65 who were ordered certain benzodiazepines, opiates, non-steroidals, or sedative-hypnotics, the computer application either adjusted the dosing or suggested a different medication. Physicians could accept or reject recommendations. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome compared medication ordering consistent with recommendations during ON versus OFF periods. Secondary outcomes included the admission rate, emergency department length of stay for discharged patients, 10-fold dosing orders, use of a second drug to reverse the original medication, and rate of ADEs using previously validated explicit chart review. RESULTS: 2398 orders were placed for 1407 patients over 1548 visits. The majority (49/53; 92.5%) of recommendations for alternate medications were declined. More orders were consistent with dosing recommendations during ON (403/1283; 31.4%) than OFF (256/1115; 23%) periods (p≤0.0001). 673 (43%) visits were reviewed for ADEs. The rate of ADEs was lower during ON (8/237; 3.4%) compared with OFF (31/436; 7.1%) periods (p=0.02). The remaining secondary outcomes showed no difference. LIMITATIONS: Single institution study, retrospective chart review for ADEs. CONCLUSION: Though overall agreement with recommendations was low, real-time computerized decision support resulted in greater acceptance of medication recommendations. Fewer ADEs were observed when computerized decision support was active.
Authors: Daniel S Budnitz; Daniel A Pollock; Kelly N Weidenbach; Aaron B Mendelsohn; Thomas J Schroeder; Joseph L Annest Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-10-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gunnar Alván; Marine L Andersson; Annika B Asplund; Ylva Böttiger; Carl-Eric Elwin; Lars L Gustafsson; Birgitta Öhman; Elisabeth Törnqvist Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Amy J Davidoff; G Edward Miller; Eric M Sarpong; Eunice Yang; Nicole Brandt; Donna M Fick Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Brian W Patterson; Michael S Pulia; Shashank Ravi; Peter L T Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Douglas Wiegmann; Emily J Wirkus; Stephen Johnson; Pascale Carayon Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Karen C Nanji; Pamela M Garabedian; Sofia D Shaikh; Marin E Langlieb; Aziz Boxwala; William J Gordon; David W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Karen C Nanji; Pamela M Garabedian; Marin E Langlieb; Angela Rui; Leo L Tabayoyong; Michael Sampson; Hao Deng; Aziz Boxwala; Rebecca D Minehart; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Michael P Friebe; Joseph R LeGrand; Bryan E Shepherd; Elizabeth A Breeden; Scott D Nelson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Joanna E Klopotowska; Peter C Wierenga; Susanne M Smorenburg; Clementine C M Stuijt; Lambertus Arisz; Paul F M Kuks; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Loraine Lie-A-Huen; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Kathy L MacLaughlin; Michael R Henry; Robert A Greenes; Ronald A Hankey; Hongfang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhry Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 4.497