BACKGROUND: Offering a drug-drug interaction (DDI) checker on-demand instead of computer-triggered alerts is a strategy to avoid alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the use of such an on-demand tool, implemented in the clinical information system for inpatients. METHODS: The study was conducted at the University Hospital Zurich, an 850-bed teaching hospital. The hospital-wide use of the on-demand DDI checker was measured for prescribers and consulting pharmacologists. The number of DDIs identified on-demand was compared to the number that would have resulted by computer-triggering and this was compared to patient-specific recommendations by a consulting pharmacist. RESULTS: The on-demand use was analyzed during treatment of 64,259 inpatients with 1,316,884 prescriptions. The DDI checker was popular with nine consulting pharmacologists (648 checks/consultant). A total of 644 prescribing physicians used it infrequently (eight checks/prescriber). Among prescribers, internists used the tool most frequently and obtained higher numbers of DDIs per check (1.7) compared to surgeons (0.4). A total of 16,553 DDIs were identified on-demand, i.e., <10 % of the number the computer would have triggered (169,192). A pharmacist visiting 922 patients on a medical ward recommended 128 adjustments to prevent DDIs (0.14 recommendations/patient), and 76 % of them were applied by prescribers. In contrast, computer-triggering the DDI checker would have resulted in 45 times more alerts on this ward (6.3 alerts/patient). CONCLUSIONS: The on-demand DDI checker was popular with the consultants only. However, prescribers accepted 76 % of patient-specific recommendations by a pharmacist. The prescribers' limited on-demand use indicates the necessity for developing improved safety concepts, tailored to suit these consumers. Thus, different approaches have to satisfy different target groups.
BACKGROUND: Offering a drug-drug interaction (DDI) checker on-demand instead of computer-triggered alerts is a strategy to avoid alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to determine the use of such an on-demand tool, implemented in the clinical information system for inpatients. METHODS: The study was conducted at the University Hospital Zurich, an 850-bed teaching hospital. The hospital-wide use of the on-demand DDI checker was measured for prescribers and consulting pharmacologists. The number of DDIs identified on-demand was compared to the number that would have resulted by computer-triggering and this was compared to patient-specific recommendations by a consulting pharmacist. RESULTS: The on-demand use was analyzed during treatment of 64,259 inpatients with 1,316,884 prescriptions. The DDI checker was popular with nine consulting pharmacologists (648 checks/consultant). A total of 644 prescribing physicians used it infrequently (eight checks/prescriber). Among prescribers, internists used the tool most frequently and obtained higher numbers of DDIs per check (1.7) compared to surgeons (0.4). A total of 16,553 DDIs were identified on-demand, i.e., <10 % of the number the computer would have triggered (169,192). A pharmacist visiting 922 patients on a medical ward recommended 128 adjustments to prevent DDIs (0.14 recommendations/patient), and 76 % of them were applied by prescribers. In contrast, computer-triggering the DDI checker would have resulted in 45 times more alerts on this ward (6.3 alerts/patient). CONCLUSIONS: The on-demand DDI checker was popular with the consultants only. However, prescribers accepted 76 % of patient-specific recommendations by a pharmacist. The prescribers' limited on-demand use indicates the necessity for developing improved safety concepts, tailored to suit these consumers. Thus, different approaches have to satisfy different target groups.
Authors: Kevin M Terrell; Anthony J Perkins; Siu L Hui; Christopher M Callahan; Paul R Dexter; Douglas K Miller Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jacob Abarca; Daniel C Malone; Edward P Armstrong; Amy J Grizzle; Philip D Hansten; Robin C Van Bergen; Richard B Lipton Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2004 Mar-Apr
Authors: Ylva Böttiger; Kari Laine; Marine L Andersson; Tuomas Korhonen; Björn Molin; Marie-Louise Ovesjö; Tuire Tirkkonen; Anders Rane; Lars L Gustafsson; Birgit Eiermann Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 2.953
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: Willemijn L Eppenga; Hieronymus J Derijks; Jean M H Conemans; Walter A J J Hermens; Michel Wensing; Peter A G M De Smet Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Marilyn D Paterno; Saverio M Maviglia; Paul N Gorman; Diane L Seger; Eileen Yoshida; Andrew C Seger; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Patrick E Beeler; E John Orav; Diane L Seger; Patricia C Dykes; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Emmanuel Eschmann; Patrick E Beeler; Vladimir Kaplan; Markus Schneemann; Gregor Zünd; Jürg Blaser Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: P H O'Donnell; N Wadhwa; K Danahey; B A Borden; S M Lee; J P Hall; C Klammer; S Hussain; M Siegler; M J Sorrentino; A M Davis; Y A Sacro; R Nanda; T S Polonsky; J L Koyner; D L Burnet; K Lipstreuer; D T Rubin; C Mulcahy; M E Strek; W Harper; A S Cifu; B Polite; L Patrick-Miller; K-Tj Yeo; Eky Leung; S L Volchenboum; R B Altman; O I Olopade; W M Stadler; D O Meltzer; M J Ratain Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 6.875