Literature DB >> 23608682

Physicians' responses to computerized drug-drug interaction alerts for outpatients.

Min-Li Yeh1, Ying-Jui Chang, Po-Yen Wang, Yu-Chuan Jack Li, Chien-Yeh Hsu.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Adverse drug reactions (ADR) increase morbidity and mortality; potential drug-drug interactions (DDI) increase the probability of ADR. Studies have proven that computerized drug-interaction alert systems (DIAS) might reduce medication errors and potential adverse events. However, the relatively high override rates obscure the benefits of alert systems, which result in barriers for availability. It is important to understand the frequency at which physicians override DIAS and the reasons for overriding reminders.
METHOD: All the DDI records of outpatient prescriptions from a tertiary university hospital from 2005 and 2006 detections by the DIAS are included in the study. The DIAS is a JAVA language software that was integrated into the computerized physician order entry system. The alert window is displayed when DDIs occur during order entries, and physicians choose the appropriate action according to the DDI alerts. There are seven response choices are obligated in representing overriding and acceptance: (1) necessary order and override; (2) expected DDI and override; (3) expected DDI with modified dosage and override; (4) no DDI and override; (5) too busy to respond and override; (6) unaware of the DDI and accept; and (7) unexpected DDI and accept. The responses were collected for analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 11,084 DDI alerts of 1,243,464 outpatient prescriptions were present, 0.89% of all computerized prescriptions. The overall rate for accepting was 8.5%, but most of the alerts were overridden (91.5%). Physicians of family medicine and gynecology-obstetrics were more willing to accept the alerts with acceptance rates of 20.8% and 20.0% respectively (p<0.001). Information regarding the recognition of DDIs indicated that 82.0% of the DDIs were aware by physicians, 15.9% of DDIs were unaware by physicians, and 2.1% of alerts were ignored. The percentage of total alerts declined from 1.12% to 0.79% during 24 months' study period, and total overridden alerts also declined (from 1.04% to 0.73%).
CONCLUSION: We explored the physicians' behavior by analyzing responses to the DDI alerts. Although the override rate is still high, the reasons why physicians may override DDI alerts were well analyzed and most DDI were recognized by physicians. Nonetheless, the trend of total overrides is in decline, which indicates a learning curve effect from exposure to DIAS. By analyzing the computerized responses provided by physicians, efforts should be made to improve the efficiency of the DIAS, and pharmacists, as well as patient safety staffs, can catch physicians' appropriate reasons for overriding DDI alerts, improving patient safety.
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23608682     DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.02.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed        ISSN: 0169-2607            Impact factor:   5.428


  10 in total

1.  Medication safety alert fatigue may be reduced via interaction design and clinical role tailoring: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mustafa I Hussain; Tera L Reynolds; Kai Zheng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  We work with them? Healthcare workers interpretation of organizational relations mined from electronic health records.

Authors:  You Chen; Nancy Lorenzi; Steve Nyemba; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Bradley Malin
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 3.  A 2014 medical informatics perspective on clinical decision support systems: do we hit the ceiling of effectiveness?

Authors:  J Bouaud; J-B Lamy
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

4.  Cytochrome P450 interactions are common and consequential in Massachusetts hospital discharges.

Authors:  T H McCoy; V M Castro; A Cagan; L Snapper; A Roberson; R H Perlis
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 3.550

5.  Pharmacogenomics-Based Point-of-Care Clinical Decision Support Significantly Alters Drug Prescribing.

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

Review 6.  Pharmacogenomic Clinical Decision Support: A Review, How-to Guide, and Future Vision.

Authors:  Dyson T Wake; D Max Smith; Sadaf Kazi; Henry M Dunnenberger
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-08-29       Impact factor: 6.903

7.  Physicians' responses to computerized drug interaction alerts with password overrides.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Nasuhara; Ken Sakushima; Akira Endoh; Reona Umeki; Hiromitsu Oki; Takehiro Yamada; Ken Iseki; Makoto Ishikawa
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 2.796

8.  A comparison of five common drug-drug interaction software programs regarding accuracy and comprehensiveness.

Authors:  Raziyeh Kheshti; Mohammadsadegh Aalipour; Soha Namazi
Journal:  J Res Pharm Pract       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec

Review 9.  Quality of Decision Support in Computerized Provider Order Entry: Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Delphine Carli; Guillaume Fahrni; Pascal Bonnabry; Christian Lovis
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2018-01-24

Review 10.  The use of computer-interpretable clinical guidelines to manage care complexities of patients with multimorbid conditions: A review.

Authors:  Eda Bilici; George Despotou; Theodoros N Arvanitis
Journal:  Digit Health       Date:  2018-10-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.