BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are a good strategy for preventing medication errors and reducing the incidence and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs). However, these systems are not very effective and are subject to multiple limitations that prevent their implementation in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an advanced CDSS, HIGEA, which generates alerts based on predefined clinical rules to identify patients at risk of an ADE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team defined the system and the clinical rules focusing on medication errors commonly encountered in clinical practice. Four intervention programs were defined: (1) dose adjustment in renal impairment; (2) adjustment of anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy; (3) detection of biochemical/hematologic toxicities; and (4) therapeutic drug monitoring. We performed a 6-month observational prospective study to analyze the effectiveness of these clinical rules by calculating the positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: The team defined 211 clinical rules. During the study period, HIGEA generated 1,086 alerts (8.9 alerts per working day), which were reviewed by pharmacists. Fifty-one percent (554/1,086) of alerts generated an intervention to prevent a possible ADE; of these, 66% (368/554) required a documented modification to therapy owing to a real prescription error intercepted. The intervention program that induced the highest number of modifications to therapy was the dose adjustment in renal impairment program (PPV = 0.51), followed by the adjustment of anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy program (PPV = 0.24). The percentage of accepted interventions was similar in surgical units (68%), medical units (67%), and critical care units (63%). CONCLUSION: Our study offers evidence that HIGEA is highly effective in preventing potential ADEs at the prescription stage. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are a good strategy for preventing medication errors and reducing the incidence and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs). However, these systems are not very effective and are subject to multiple limitations that prevent their implementation in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an advanced CDSS, HIGEA, which generates alerts based on predefined clinical rules to identify patients at risk of an ADE. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team defined the system and the clinical rules focusing on medication errors commonly encountered in clinical practice. Four intervention programs were defined: (1) dose adjustment in renal impairment; (2) adjustment of anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy; (3) detection of biochemical/hematologic toxicities; and (4) therapeutic drug monitoring. We performed a 6-month observational prospective study to analyze the effectiveness of these clinical rules by calculating the positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: The team defined 211 clinical rules. During the study period, HIGEA generated 1,086 alerts (8.9 alerts per working day), which were reviewed by pharmacists. Fifty-one percent (554/1,086) of alerts generated an intervention to prevent a possible ADE; of these, 66% (368/554) required a documented modification to therapy owing to a real prescription error intercepted. The intervention program that induced the highest number of modifications to therapy was the dose adjustment in renal impairment program (PPV = 0.51), followed by the adjustment of anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy program (PPV = 0.24). The percentage of accepted interventions was similar in surgical units (68%), medical units (67%), and critical care units (63%). CONCLUSION: Our study offers evidence that HIGEA is highly effective in preventing potential ADEs at the prescription stage. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Jon B Silverman; Carl D Stapinski; Camilla Huber; Tejal K Ghandi; William W Churchill Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Jesse I Wolfstadt; Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Monica Lee; Sunila Kalkar; Wei Wu; Paula A Rochon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gilad J Kuperman; Anne Bobb; Thomas H Payne; Anthony J Avery; Tejal K Gandhi; Gerard Burns; David C Classen; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: M K Rommers; M H Zegers; P A De Clercq; M L Bouvy; P H E M de Meijer; I M Teepe-Twiss; H-J Guchelaar Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-12
Authors: Linda Awdishu; Carrie R Coates; Adam Lyddane; Kim Tran; Charles E Daniels; Joshua Lee; Robert El-Kareh Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: L L Leape; D W Bates; D J Cullen; J Cooper; H J Demonaco; T Gallivan; R Hallisey; J Ives; N Laird; G Laffel Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Crystal Smith-Spangler; Sally C Morton; Steven M Asch; Vaspaan M Patel; Laura J Anderson; Emily L Deichsel; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2014-06-04
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: Kinjal Gadhiya; Edgar Zamora; Salim M Saiyed; David Friedlander; David C Kaelber Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Michael P Friebe; Joseph R LeGrand; Bryan E Shepherd; Elizabeth A Breeden; Scott D Nelson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 2.342
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