Nedra S Whitehead1, Laurina Williams2, Sreelatha Meleth1, Sara Kennedy1, Nneka Ubaka-Blackmoore1, Michael Kanter3, Kevin J O'Leary4, David Classen5,6, Brian Jackson6,7, Daniel R Murphy8,9, James Nichols10, David Stockwell5,11,12, Thomas Lorey13, Paul Epner14, Jennifer Taylor1, Mark L Graber1. 1. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; low1@cdc.gov. 3. Permanente Federation and Regional Medical Director of Quality and Clinical Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA. 4. Division of Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 5. Pascal Metrics, Washington, DC. 6. University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 7. ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT. 8. Houston VA Center of Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX. 9. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 10. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 11. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC. 12. Department of Pediatrics, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 13. TPMG Regional Reference Laboratory, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Berkeley, CA. 14. Paul Epner, LLC, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laboratory and medication data in electronic health records create opportunities for clinical decision support (CDS) tools to improve medication dosing, laboratory monitoring, and detection of side effects. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of such tools in preventing medication-related harm. METHODS: We followed the Laboratory Medicine Best Practice (LMBP) initiative's A-6 methodology. Searches of 6 bibliographic databases retrieved 8508 abstracts. Fifteen articles examined the effect of CDS tools on (a) appropriate dose or medication (n = 5), (b) laboratory monitoring (n = 4), (c) compliance with guidelines (n = 2), and (d) adverse drug events (n = 5). We conducted meta-analyses by using random-effects modeling. RESULTS: We found moderate and consistent evidence that CDS tools applied at medication ordering or dispensing can increase prescriptions of appropriate medications or dosages [6 results, pooled risk ratio (RR), 1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.74]. CDS tools also improve receipt of recommended laboratory monitoring and appropriate treatment in response to abnormal test results (6 results, pooled RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.87). The evidence that CDS tools reduced adverse drug events was inconsistent (5 results, pooled RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the practice of healthcare systems with the technological capability incorporating test-based CDS tools into their computerized physician ordering systems to (a) identify and flag prescription orders of inappropriate dose or medications at the time of ordering or dispensing and (b) alert providers to missing laboratory tests for medication monitoring or results that warrant a change in treatment. More research is needed to determine the ability of these tools to prevent adverse drug events.
BACKGROUND: Laboratory and medication data in electronic health records create opportunities for clinical decision support (CDS) tools to improve medication dosing, laboratory monitoring, and detection of side effects. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of such tools in preventing medication-related harm. METHODS: We followed the Laboratory Medicine Best Practice (LMBP) initiative's A-6 methodology. Searches of 6 bibliographic databases retrieved 8508 abstracts. Fifteen articles examined the effect of CDS tools on (a) appropriate dose or medication (n = 5), (b) laboratory monitoring (n = 4), (c) compliance with guidelines (n = 2), and (d) adverse drug events (n = 5). We conducted meta-analyses by using random-effects modeling. RESULTS: We found moderate and consistent evidence that CDS tools applied at medication ordering or dispensing can increase prescriptions of appropriate medications or dosages [6 results, pooled risk ratio (RR), 1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.74]. CDS tools also improve receipt of recommended laboratory monitoring and appropriate treatment in response to abnormal test results (6 results, pooled RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.87). The evidence that CDS tools reduced adverse drug events was inconsistent (5 results, pooled RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the practice of healthcare systems with the technological capability incorporating test-based CDS tools into their computerized physician ordering systems to (a) identify and flag prescription orders of inappropriate dose or medications at the time of ordering or dispensing and (b) alert providers to missing laboratory tests for medication monitoring or results that warrant a change in treatment. More research is needed to determine the ability of these tools to prevent adverse drug events.
Authors: Edward B Liebow; James H Derzon; John Fontanesi; Alessandra M Favoretto; Rich Ann Baetz; Colleen Shaw; Pamela Thompson; Diana Mass; Robert Christenson; Paul Epner; Susan R Snyder Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Alireza Kazemi; Johan Ellenius; Faramarz Pourasghar; Shahram Tofighi; Aref Salehi; Ali Amanati; Uno G H Fors Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Christopher Layfield; John Rose; Aaron Alford; Susan R Snyder; Fred S Apple; Farah M Chowdhury; Michael C Kontos; L Kristin Newby; Alan B Storrow; Milenko Tanasijevic; Elizabeth Leibach; Edward B Liebow; Robert H Christenson Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Tejal K Gandhi; Saul N Weingart; Joshua Borus; Andrew C Seger; Josh Peterson; Elisabeth Burdick; Diane L Seger; Kirstin Shu; Frank Federico; Lucian L Leape; David W Bates Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Isaac Hoch; Anthony D Heymann; Irena Kurman; Liora J Valinsky; Gabi Chodick; Varda Shalev Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-08-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Stephanie S Buehler; Bereneice Madison; Susan R Snyder; James H Derzon; Nancy E Cornish; Michael A Saubolle; Alice S Weissfeld; Melvin P Weinstein; Edward B Liebow; Donna M Wolk Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Rebecca Spicehandler; Jason Zucker; Caitlin Yumori; Matthew Adan; Caroline Carnevale; Deborah Theodore; Delivette Castor; Kathrine Meyers; Susan Whittier; Michael T Yin; Alwyn Cohall; Susan Olender; Peter Gordon; Magdalena E Sobieszczyk Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Ira M Lubin; J Rex Astles; Shahram Shahangian; Bereneice Madison; Ritchard Parry; Robert L Schmidt; Matthew L Rubinstein Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2021-01-06