Hugo A J M de Wit1, Carlota Mestres Gonzalvo2, Jenny Cardenas3, Hieronymus J Derijks4, Rob Janknegt5, Paul-Hugo M van der Kuy6, Bjorn Winkens7, Jos M G A Schols8. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hu.dewit@orbisconcern.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.mestresgonzalvo@orbisconcern.nl. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cardjenny@hotmail.com. 4. Hospital Pharmacy ZANOB, Henri Dunantstraat 1, 5223GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.derijks@zanob.nl. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.janknegt@orbisconcern.nl. 6. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: h.vanderkuy@orbisconcern.nl. 7. Department of Methodology and Statistics, CAPHRI-School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Peter Debeyeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: bjorn.winkens@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 8. Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI-School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI-School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jos.schols@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To improve the current standalone pharmacy clinical decision support system (CDSS) by identifying and quantifying the benefits and limitations of the system. METHODS: Alerts and handling of the executed clinical rules were extracted from the CDSS from the period September 2011 to December 2011. The number of executed clinical rule alerts, number of actions on alerts, and the reason why alerts were classified as not relevant were analyzed. The alerts where considered clinically relevant when the pharmacist needed to contact the physician. RESULTS: The 4065 alerts have been separated into: 1137 (28.0%) new alerts, 2797 (68.8%) repeat alerts and 131 (3.2%) double alerts. When the alerts were analyzed, only 3.6% were considered clinically relevant. Reasons why alerts were considered as not to be relevant were: (a) the dosage was correct or already adjusted, (b) the drug was (temporarily) stopped and (c) the monitored laboratory value or drug dosage had already reverted to be within the reference limits. The reasons for no action were linked to three categorical limitations of the used system: 'algorithm alert criteria', 'CDSS optimization', and 'data delivery'. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted a number of ways in which the CDSS could be improved. These different aspects have been identified as important for developing an efficient CDSS.
OBJECTIVES: To improve the current standalone pharmacy clinical decision support system (CDSS) by identifying and quantifying the benefits and limitations of the system. METHODS: Alerts and handling of the executed clinical rules were extracted from the CDSS from the period September 2011 to December 2011. The number of executed clinical rule alerts, number of actions on alerts, and the reason why alerts were classified as not relevant were analyzed. The alerts where considered clinically relevant when the pharmacist needed to contact the physician. RESULTS: The 4065 alerts have been separated into: 1137 (28.0%) new alerts, 2797 (68.8%) repeat alerts and 131 (3.2%) double alerts. When the alerts were analyzed, only 3.6% were considered clinically relevant. Reasons why alerts were considered as not to be relevant were: (a) the dosage was correct or already adjusted, (b) the drug was (temporarily) stopped and (c) the monitored laboratory value or drug dosage had already reverted to be within the reference limits. The reasons for no action were linked to three categorical limitations of the used system: 'algorithm alert criteria', 'CDSS optimization', and 'data delivery'. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted a number of ways in which the CDSS could be improved. These different aspects have been identified as important for developing an efficient CDSS.
Authors: Charlotte Quintens; Willy E Peetermans; Lorenz Van der Linden; Peter Declercq; Bart Van den Bosch; Isabel Spriet Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Charlotte Quintens; Thomas De Rijdt; Tine Van Nieuwenhuyse; Steven Simoens; Willy E Peetermans; Bart Van den Bosch; Minne Casteels; Isabel Spriet Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Syed Imran Ali; Su Woong Jung; Hafiz Syed Muhammad Bilal; Sang-Ho Lee; Jamil Hussain; Muhammad Afzal; Maqbool Hussain; Taqdir Ali; Taechoong Chung; Sungyoung Lee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Birgit A Damoiseaux-Volman; Stephanie Medlock; Delanie M van der Meulen; Jesse de Boer; Johannes A Romijn; Nathalie van der Velde; Ameen Abu-Hanna Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Linda Lapp; Kieren Egan; Lisa McCann; Moira Mackenzie; Ann Wales; Roma Maguire Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Hugo A J M de Wit; Kim P G M Hurkens; Carlota Mestres Gonzalvo; Machiel Smid; Walther Sipers; Bjorn Winkens; Wubbo J Mulder; Rob Janknegt; Frans R Verhey; Paul-Hugo M van der Kuy; Jos M G A Schols Journal: Springerplus Date: 2016-06-24