Shobha Phansalkar1, Marianne Zachariah2, Hanna M Seidling3, Chantal Mendes2, Lynn Volk2, David W Bates4. 1. Partners Healthcare Systems, Inc., Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Wolters Kluwer Health, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 2. Partners Healthcare Systems, Inc., Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Partners Healthcare Systems, Inc., Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Increasing the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated clinical decision support (CDS) is a key initiative of the current US healthcare administration. High over-ride rates of CDS alerts strongly limit these potential benefits. As a result, EHR designers aspire to improve alert design to achieve better acceptance rates. In this study, we evaluated drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts generated in EHRs and compared them for compliance with human factors principles. METHODS: We utilized a previously validated questionnaire, the I-MeDeSA, to assess compliance with nine human factors principles of DDI alerts generated in 14 EHRs. Two reviewers independently assigned scores evaluating the human factors characteristics of each EHR. Rankings were assigned based on these scores and recommendations for appropriate alert design were derived. RESULTS: The 14 EHRs evaluated in this study received scores ranging from 8 to 18.33, with a maximum possible score of 26. Cohen's κ (κ=0.86) reflected excellent agreement among reviewers. The six vendor products tied for second and third place rankings, while the top system and bottom five systems were home-grown products. The most common weaknesses included the absence of characteristics such as alert prioritization, clear and concise alert messages indicating interacting drugs, actions for clinical management, and a statement indicating the consequences of over-riding the alert. CONCLUSIONS: We provided detailed analyses of the human factors principles which were assessed and described our recommendations for effective alert design. Future studies should assess whether adherence to these recommendations can improve alert acceptance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
INTRODUCTION: Increasing the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated clinical decision support (CDS) is a key initiative of the current US healthcare administration. High over-ride rates of CDS alerts strongly limit these potential benefits. As a result, EHR designers aspire to improve alert design to achieve better acceptance rates. In this study, we evaluated drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts generated in EHRs and compared them for compliance with human factors principles. METHODS: We utilized a previously validated questionnaire, the I-MeDeSA, to assess compliance with nine human factors principles of DDI alerts generated in 14 EHRs. Two reviewers independently assigned scores evaluating the human factors characteristics of each EHR. Rankings were assigned based on these scores and recommendations for appropriate alert design were derived. RESULTS: The 14 EHRs evaluated in this study received scores ranging from 8 to 18.33, with a maximum possible score of 26. Cohen's κ (κ=0.86) reflected excellent agreement among reviewers. The six vendor products tied for second and third place rankings, while the top system and bottom five systems were home-grown products. The most common weaknesses included the absence of characteristics such as alert prioritization, clear and concise alert messages indicating interacting drugs, actions for clinical management, and a statement indicating the consequences of over-riding the alert. CONCLUSIONS: We provided detailed analyses of the human factors principles which were assessed and described our recommendations for effective alert design. Future studies should assess whether adherence to these recommendations can improve alert acceptance. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical Decision Support; Drug Drug Interaction; EHRs; Electronic Health Records; Human Factors; Medication-Related Decision Support
Authors: Marianne Zachariah; Shobha Phansalkar; Hanna M Seidling; Pamela M Neri; Kathrin M Cresswell; Jon Duke; Meryl Bloomrosen; Lynn A Volk; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shobha Phansalkar; Judy Edworthy; Elizabeth Hellier; Diane L Seger; Angela Schedlbauer; Anthony J Avery; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lance L Roberts; Marcia M Ward; Jane M Brokel; Douglas S Wakefield; Donald K Crandall; Paul Conlon Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Saul N Weingart; Brett Simchowitz; Harper Padolsky; Thomas Isaac; Andrew C Seger; Michael Massagli; Roger B Davis; Joel S Weissman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-09-14
Authors: Hanna M Seidling; Shobha Phansalkar; Diane L Seger; Marilyn D Paterno; Shimon Shaykevich; Walter E Haefeli; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sara Ibáñez-Garcia; Carmen Rodriguez-Gonzalez; Vicente Escudero-Vilaplana; Maria Luisa Martin-Barbero; Belén Marzal-Alfaro; Jose Luis De la Rosa-Triviño; Irene Iglesias-Peinado; Ana Herranz-Alonso; Maria Sanjurjo Saez Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kristen Miller; Danielle Mosby; Muge Capan; Rebecca Kowalski; Raj Ratwani; Yaman Noaiseh; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adrian Wong; Adam Wright; Diane L Seger; Mary G Amato; Julie M Fiskio; David Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Laura Schubel; Danielle L Mosby; Joseph Blumenthal; Muge Capan; Ryan Arnold; Rebecca Kowalski; F Jacob Seagull; Ken Catchpole; J Sanford Schwartz; Ella Franklin; Robin Littlejohn; Kristen E Miller Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 2.681