Steven Stettner1, Sarah Adie2, Sarah Hanigan2, Michael Thomas3, Kristen Pogue2, Christopher Zimmerman4. 1. Department of Pharmacy, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, United States. 2. Department of Pharmacy Services, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 3. Department of Internal Medicine-Cardiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States. 4. Department of Health Information and Technology Services, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to implement a customized QTc interval clinical decision support (CDS) alert strategy in our electronic health record for hospitalized patients and aimed at providers with the following objectives: minimize QTc prolongation, minimize exposure to QTc prolonging medications, and decrease overall QTc-related alerts. A strategy that was based on the validated QTc risk scoring tool and replacing medication knowledge vendor alerts with custom QTc prolongation alerts was implemented. METHODS: This is a retrospective quasi-experimental study with a pre-intervention period (August 2019 to October 2019) and post-intervention period (December 2019 to February 2020). The custom alert was implemented in November 2019. RESULTS: In the pre-implementation group, 361 (19.3%) patients developed QTc prolongation, and in the post-implementation group, 357 (19.6%) patients developed QTc prolongation (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.20, p = 0.81). The odds ratio of an action taken post-implementation compared with pre-implementation was 18.90 (95% CI: 14.03-25.47, p <0. 001). There was also a decrease in total orders for QTc prolonging medications from 7,921 (5.5%) to 7,566 (5.3%) with an odds ratio of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We were able to decrease patient exposure to QTc prolonging medications while not increasing the rate of QTc prolongation as well as improving alert action rate. Additionally, there was a decrease in QTc prolonging medication orders which illustrates the benefit of using a validated risk score with a customized CDS approach compared with a traditional vendor-based strategy. Further research is needed to confirm if an approach implemented at our organization can reduce QTc prolongation rates. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to implement a customized QTc interval clinical decision support (CDS) alert strategy in our electronic health record for hospitalized patients and aimed at providers with the following objectives: minimize QTc prolongation, minimize exposure to QTc prolonging medications, and decrease overall QTc-related alerts. A strategy that was based on the validated QTc risk scoring tool and replacing medication knowledge vendor alerts with custom QTc prolongation alerts was implemented. METHODS: This is a retrospective quasi-experimental study with a pre-intervention period (August 2019 to October 2019) and post-intervention period (December 2019 to February 2020). The custom alert was implemented in November 2019. RESULTS: In the pre-implementation group, 361 (19.3%) patients developed QTc prolongation, and in the post-implementation group, 357 (19.6%) patients developed QTc prolongation (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.20, p = 0.81). The odds ratio of an action taken post-implementation compared with pre-implementation was 18.90 (95% CI: 14.03-25.47, p <0. 001). There was also a decrease in total orders for QTc prolonging medications from 7,921 (5.5%) to 7,566 (5.3%) with an odds ratio of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We were able to decrease patient exposure to QTc prolonging medications while not increasing the rate of QTc prolongation as well as improving alert action rate. Additionally, there was a decrease in QTc prolonging medication orders which illustrates the benefit of using a validated risk score with a customized CDS approach compared with a traditional vendor-based strategy. Further research is needed to confirm if an approach implemented at our organization can reduce QTc prolongation rates. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: David Pickham; Eric Helfenbein; Julie A Shinn; Garrett Chan; Marjorie Funk; Ann Weinacker; Jia-Ni Liu; Barbara J Drew Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Atsushi Sorita; J Martijn Bos; Bruce W Morlan; Robert F Tarrell; Michael J Ackerman; Pedro J Caraballo Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Thomas H Payne; Lisa E Hines; Raymond C Chan; Seth Hartman; Joan Kapusnik-Uner; Alissa L Russ; Bruce W Chaffee; Christian Hartman; Victoria Tamis; Brian Galbreth; Peter A Glassman; Shobha Phansalkar; Heleen van der Sijs; Sheila M Gephart; Gordon Mann; Howard R Strasberg; Amy J Grizzle; Mary Brown; Gilad J Kuperman; Chris Steiner; Amanda Sullins; Hugh Ryan; Michael A Wittie; Daniel C Malone Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sunita Sharma; J Martijn Bos; Robert F Tarrell; Gyorgy J Simon; Bruce W Morlan; Michael J Ackerman; Pedro J Caraballo Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: James E Tisdale; Heather A Wroblewski; Brian R Overholser; Joanna R Kingery; Tate N Trujillo; Richard J Kovacs Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: James E Tisdale; Heather A Jaynes; Joanna R Kingery; Noha A Mourad; Tate N Trujillo; Brian R Overholser; Richard J Kovacs Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-05-28
Authors: Charlotte P M Heemskerk; Marieke Pereboom; Karlijn van Stralen; Florine A Berger; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Aaf F M Kuijper; Ruud T M van der Hoeven; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Matthijs L Becker Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 2.953