Adam A Nishimura1, Brian H Shirts2, Joseph Salama3, Joe W Smith4, Beth Devine4, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch5. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: adamnish@uw.edu. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if physicians find clinical decision support alerts for pharmacogenomic drug-gene interactions useful and assess their perceptions of usability aspects that impact usefulness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 52 physicians participated in an online simulation and questionnaire involving a prototype alert for the clopidogrel and CYP2C19 drug-gene interaction. RESULTS: Only 4% of participants stated they would override the alert. 92% agreed that the alerts were useful. 87% found the visual interface appropriate, 91% felt the timing of the alert was appropriate and 75% were unfamiliar with the specific drug-gene interaction. 80% of providers preferred the ability to order the recommended medication within the alert. Qualitative responses suggested that supplementary information is important, but should be provided as external links, and that the utility of pharmacogenomic alerts depends on the broader ecosystem of alerts. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacogenomic alerts would be welcomed by many physicians, can be built with minimalist design principles, and are appropriately placed at the end of the prescribing process. Since many physicians lack familiarity with pharmacogenomics but have limited time, information and educational resources within the alert should be carefully selected and presented in concise ways.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if physicians find clinical decision support alerts for pharmacogenomic drug-gene interactions useful and assess their perceptions of usability aspects that impact usefulness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 52 physicians participated in an online simulation and questionnaire involving a prototype alert for the clopidogrel and CYP2C19 drug-gene interaction. RESULTS: Only 4% of participants stated they would override the alert. 92% agreed that the alerts were useful. 87% found the visual interface appropriate, 91% felt the timing of the alert was appropriate and 75% were unfamiliar with the specific drug-gene interaction. 80% of providers preferred the ability to order the recommended medication within the alert. Qualitative responses suggested that supplementary information is important, but should be provided as external links, and that the utility of pharmacogenomic alerts depends on the broader ecosystem of alerts. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacogenomic alerts would be welcomed by many physicians, can be built with minimalist design principles, and are appropriately placed at the end of the prescribing process. Since many physicians lack familiarity with pharmacogenomics but have limited time, information and educational resources within the alert should be carefully selected and presented in concise ways.
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Eric G Poon; Kenneth Guappone; Emily Campbell; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jan Horsky; Gordon D Schiff; Douglas Johnston; Lauren Mercincavage; Douglas Bell; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J M Pulley; J C Denny; J F Peterson; G R Bernard; C L Vnencak-Jones; A H Ramirez; J T Delaney; E Bowton; K Brothers; K Johnson; D C Crawford; J Schildcrout; D R Masys; H H Dilks; R A Wilke; E W Clayton; E Shultz; M Laposata; J McPherson; J N Jirjis; D M Roden Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Casey Lynnette Overby; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; James I Hoath; Ira J Kalet; David L Veenstra Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Andrea Hartzler; Catherine A McCarty; Luke V Rasmussen; Marc S Williams; Murray Brilliant; Erica A Bowton; Ellen Wright Clayton; William A Faucett; Kadija Ferryman; Julie R Field; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara A Koenig; Jennifer B McCormick; James D Ralston; Saskia C Sanderson; Maureen E Smith; Susan Brown Trinidad Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Martin Jung; Daniel Riedmann; Werner O Hackl; Alexander Hoerbst; Monique W Jaspers; Laurie Ferret; Kitta Lawton; Elske Ammenwerth Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Brittany L Melton; Alan J Zillich; Jason Saleem; Alissa L Russ; James E Tisdale; Brian R Overholser Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Katrina M Romagnoli; Richard D Boyce; Philip E Empey; Yifan Ning; Solomon Adams; Harry Hochheiser Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nicholas J Keeling; Tyler J Dunn; John P Bentley; Sujith Ramachandran; James M Hoffman; Meagen Rosenthal Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Marc Hinderer; Martin Boeker; Sebastian A Wagner; Martin Lablans; Stephanie Newe; Jan L Hülsemann; Michael Neumaier; Harald Binder; Harald Renz; Till Acker; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Martin Sedlmayr Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.796