Nicole M Benson1,2,3, Caryn Belisle4, David W Bates3,4,5, Hojjat Salmasian3,4. 1. McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, United States. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 5. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined clinical decision support (CDS) alerts designed specifically for medication shortages to characterize and assess provider behavior in response to these short-term clinical situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the usage of medication shortage alerts (MSAs) that included at least one alternative medication suggestion and were active for 60 or more days during the 2-year study period, January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, in a large health care system. We characterized ordering provider behavior in response to inpatient MSAs. We then developed a linear regression model to predict provider response to alerts using the characteristics of the ordering provider and alert frequency groupings. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 67 MSAs in use that focused on 42 distinct medications in shortage. The MSAs suggested an average of 3.9 alternative medications. Adjusting for the different alerts, fellows (p = 0.004), residents (p = 0.03), and physician assistants (p = 0.02) were less likely to accept alerts on average compared with attending physicians. Further, female ordering clinicians (p < 0.001) were more likely to accept alerts on average compared with male ordering clinicians. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that providers tended to reject MSAs, even those who were sometimes flexible about their responses. The low overall acceptance rate supports the theory that alerts appearing at the time of order entry may have limited value, as they may be presented too late in the decision-making process. Though MSAs are designed to be attention-grabbing and higher impact than traditional CDS, our findings suggest that providers rarely change their clinical decisions when presented with these alerts. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We examined clinical decision support (CDS) alerts designed specifically for medication shortages to characterize and assess provider behavior in response to these short-term clinical situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the usage of medication shortage alerts (MSAs) that included at least one alternative medication suggestion and were active for 60 or more days during the 2-year study period, January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, in a large health care system. We characterized ordering provider behavior in response to inpatient MSAs. We then developed a linear regression model to predict provider response to alerts using the characteristics of the ordering provider and alert frequency groupings. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 67 MSAs in use that focused on 42 distinct medications in shortage. The MSAs suggested an average of 3.9 alternative medications. Adjusting for the different alerts, fellows (p = 0.004), residents (p = 0.03), and physician assistants (p = 0.02) were less likely to accept alerts on average compared with attending physicians. Further, female ordering clinicians (p < 0.001) were more likely to accept alerts on average compared with male ordering clinicians. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that providers tended to reject MSAs, even those who were sometimes flexible about their responses. The low overall acceptance rate supports the theory that alerts appearing at the time of order entry may have limited value, as they may be presented too late in the decision-making process. Though MSAs are designed to be attention-grabbing and higher impact than traditional CDS, our findings suggest that providers rarely change their clinical decisions when presented with these alerts. Thieme. All rights reserved.
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: Peter Vo; Daniel A Sylvia; Loay Milibari; John Ryan Stackhouse; Paul Szumita; Megan Rocchio; Michael Cotugno; Caryn Belisle; Charles Morris; Eric Goralnick; Joshua C Vacanti; Lina Matta; Tom Cooley; Angela Triggs; Jon Silverman; John Fanikos Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Sonam N Shah; Mary G Amato; Katherine G Garlo; Diane L Seger; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Katy E Trinkley; Jonathan M Pell; Dario D Martinez; Nicola R Maude; Gary Hale; Michael A Rosenberg Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Hojjat Salmasian; Bonnie B Blanchfield; Kelley Joyce; Kaila Centeio; Gordon B Schiff; Adam Wright; Christopher W Baugh; Jeremiah D Schuur; David W Bates; Jason S Adelman; Adam B Landman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02