Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 941–948 | Cite as

Potential drug-related problems detected by electronic expert support system: physicians’ views on clinical relevance

  • Tora HammarEmail author
  • Bodil Lidström
  • Göran Petersson
  • Yngve Gustafson
  • Birgit Eiermann
Research Article

Abstract

Background Drug-related problems cause suffering for patients and substantial costs. Multi-dose drug dispensing is a service in which patients receive their medication packed in bags with one unit for each dose occasion. The electronic expert support system (EES) is a clinical decision support system that provides alerts if potential drug-related problems are detected among a patients’ current prescriptions, including drug–drug interactions, therapy duplications, high doses, drug-disease interactions, drug gender warnings, and inappropriate drugs and doses for geriatric or pediatric patients. Objective The aim of the study was to explore physicians’ views on the clinical relevance of alerts provided by EES. Furthermore we investigated if physicians performed any changes in drug treatment following the alerts and if there were any differences in perceived relevance and performed changes between different types of alerts and drugs. Setting Two geriatric clinics and three primary care units in Sweden. Method Prescribed medications for patients (n = 254) with multi-dose drug dispensing were analyzed for potential drug-related problems using EES. For each alert, a physician assessed clinical relevance and indicated any intended action. A total of 15 physicians took part in the study. Changes in drug treatment following the alerts were later measured. The relationship between variables was analyzed using Chi square test. Main outcome measure Physicians’ perceived clinical relevance of each alert, and changes in drug treatment following the alerts. Results Physicians perceived 68 % (502/740) of EES alerts as clinically relevant and 11 % of all alerts were followed by a change in drug treatment. Clinical relevance and likelihood to make changes in drug treatment was related to the alert category and substances involved in the alert. Conclusion In most patients with multi-dose drug dispensing, EES detected potential drug-related problems, with the majority of the alerts regarded as clinically relevant and some followed by measurable changes in drug treatment.

Keywords

Alerts Clinical decision support systems Drug-related problems Geriatric patients Multi-dose drug dispensing Relevance Sweden 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Abdul Aziz Ali for advice on statistical analyses. The authors would also like to thank Ramtin Atifeh and the participating health care units.

Funding

The study was financed by the eHealth Agency, the Medical Products Agency, and the Linnaeus University, Sweden.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Juurlink DN, Mamdani M, Kopp A, Laupacis A, Redelmeier DA. Drug-drug interactions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug toxicity. JAMA. 2003;289(13):1652–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strandell J, Wahlin S. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug interactions reported to VigiBase, the WHO global individual case safety report database. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(6):633–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonsson AK, Spigset O, Tjaderborn M, Druid H, Hagg S. Fatal drug poisonings in a Swedish general population. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2009;9:7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spinewine A, Schmader KE, Barber N, Hughes C, Lapane KL, Swine C, et al. Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised? Lancet. 2007;370(9582):173–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Topinkova E, Baeyens JP, Michel JP, Lang PO. Evidence-based strategies for the optimization of pharmacotherapy in older people. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):477–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rahmner PB, Eiermann B, Korkmaz S, Gustafsson LL, Gruven M, Maxwell S, et al. Physicians’ reported needs of drug information at point of care in Sweden. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;73(1):115–25.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Handler SM, Dolovich LR, Holbrook AM, O’Reilly D, et al. The effectiveness of integrated health information technologies across the phases of medication management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):22–30.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiermann B, Bastholm Rahmner P, Korkmaz S, Landberg C, Lilja B, Shemeikka T, et al. Knowledge bases for clinical decision support in drug prescribing—development, quality assurance, management, integration, implementation and evaluation of clinical value. In: Jao CS, editor. Decision support systems. Croatia: InTech; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coleman JJ, van der Sijs H, Haefeli WE, Slight SP, McDowell SE, Seidling HM, et al. On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:111.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Handler SM, Dolovich LR, Holbrook AM, O’Reilly D, et al. Enabling medication management through health information technology (Health IT). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2011;201:1–951.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLOS Med. 2011;8(1):e1000387.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, Overhage JM, Shabot MM, Sheridan T. White paper—reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(4):299–308.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huckvale C, Car J, Akiyama M, Jaafar S, Khoja T, Bin Khalid A, et al. Information technology for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(Suppl 2):i25–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, Steen EB, Wright A, Detmer DE. A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(2):141–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuperman GJ, Bobb A, Payne TH, Avery AJ, Gandhi TK, Burns G, et al. Medication-related clinical decision support in computerized provider order entry systems: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(1):29–40.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robertson J, Walkom E, Pearson SA, Hains I, Williamsone M, Newby D. The impact of pharmacy computerised clinical decision support on prescribing, clinical and patient outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18(2):69–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hemens BJ, Holbrook A, Tonkin M, Mackay JA, Weise-Kelly L, Navarro T, et al. Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:89.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaspers MW, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H, Peute LW. Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):327–34.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seidling HM, Schmitt SP, Bruckner T, Kaltschmidt J, Pruszydlo MG, Senger C, et al. Patient-specific electronic decision support reduces prescription of excessive doses. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):e15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott GP, Shah P, Wyatt JC, Makubate B, Cross FW. Making electronic prescribing alerts more effective: scenario-based experimental study in junior doctors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(6):789–98.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mollon B, Chong J Jr, Holbrook AM, Sung M, Thabane L, Foster G. Features predicting the success of computerized decision support for prescribing: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9:11.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horsky J, Phansalkar S, Desai A, Bell D, Middleton B. Design of decision support interventions for medication prescribing. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(6):492–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riedmann D, Jung M, Hackl WO, Ammenwerth E. How to improve the delivery of medication alerts within computerized physician order entry systems: an international Delphi study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(6):760–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nanji KC, Slight SP, Seger DL, Cho I, Fiskio JM, Redden LM, et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):487–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slight SP, Nanji KC, Seger DL, Cho I, Volk LA, Bates DW. Overrides of clinical decision support alerts in primary care clinics. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hammar T, Hovstadius B, Lidström B, Petersson G, Eiermann B. Potential drug related problems detected by electronic expert support system in patients with multi-dose drug dispensing. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(5):943–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ucar A. Assessment of clinical relevance of alerts from EES used at an emergency department. Uppsala University: Department of pharmaceutical bioscience, 2011 [In Swedish].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnell K, Fastbom J. Multi-dose drug dispensing and inappropriate drug use: a nationwide register-based study of over 700000 elderly. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2008;26(2):86–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sjoberg C, Edward C, Fastbom J, Johnell K, Landahl S, Narbro K, et al. Association between multi-dose drug dispensing and quality of drug treatment—a register-based study. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26574.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wallerstedt SM, Fastbom J, Johnell K, Sjoberg C, Landahl S, Sundstrom A. Drug treatment in older people before and after the transition to a multi-dose drug dispensing system—a longitudinal analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67088.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sinnemaki J, Sihvo S, Isojarvi J, Blom M, Airaksinen M, Mantyla A. Automated dose dispensing service for primary healthcare patients: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2013;2:1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnell K, Klarin I. The relationship between number of drugs and potential drug-drug interactions in the elderly: a study of over 600,000 elderly patients from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Drug Saf. 2007;30(10):911–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olsson J, Bergman A, Carlsten A, Oke T, Bernsten C, Schmidt IK, et al. Quality of drug prescribing in elderly people in nursing homes and special care units for dementia: a cross-sectional computerized pharmacy register analysis. Clin Drug Investig. 2010;30(5):289–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruggiero C, Lattanzio F, Dell’Aquila G, Gasperini B, Cherubini A. Inappropriate drug prescriptions among older nursing home residents: the Italian perspective. Drugs Aging. 2009;26(Suppl 1):15–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lao CK, Ho SC, Chan KK, Tou CF, Tong HH, Chan A. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and drug-drug interactions among elderly Chinese nursing home residents in Macao. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(5):805–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wahab MS, Nyfort-Hansen K, Kowalski SR. Inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised Australian elderly as determined by the STOPP criteria. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(6):855–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jani YH, Barber N, Wong IC. Characteristics of clinical decision support alert overrides in an electronic prescribing system at a tertiary care paediatric hospital. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19(5):363–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(2):138–47.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Sijs H, Mulder A, van Gelder T, Aarts J, Berg M, Vulto A. Drug safety alert generation and overriding in a large Dutch university medical centre. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(10):941–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Phansalkar S, Desai A, Choksi A, Yoshida E, Doole J, Czochanski M, et al. Criteria for assessing high-priority drug-drug interactions for clinical decision support in electronic health records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):65.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Seidling HM, Klein U, Schaier M, Czock D, Theile D, Pruszydlo MG, et al. What, if all alerts were specific—estimating the potential impact on drug interaction alert burden. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):285–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Duke JD, Li X, Dexter P. Adherence to drug-drug interaction alerts in high-risk patients: a trial of context-enhanced alerting. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(3):494–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bryant AD, Fletcher GS, Payne TH. Drug interaction alert override rates in the Meaningful Use era: no evidence of progress. Appl Clin Inform. 2014;5(3):802–13.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Slight SP, Seger DL, Nanji KC, Cho I, Maniam N, Dykes PC, et al. Are we heeding the warning signs? Examining providers’ overrides of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in primary care. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e85071.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McCoy AB, Thomas EJ, Krousel-Wood M, Sittig DF. Clinical decision support alert appropriateness: a review and proposal for improvement. Ochsner J. 2014;14(2):195–202.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tora Hammar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bodil Lidström
    • 2
  • Göran Petersson
    • 1
  • Yngve Gustafson
    • 4
  • Birgit Eiermann
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Optometry, eHealth InstituteLinnaeus UniversityKalmarSweden
  2. 2.Swedish eHealth AgencyStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratory MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and RehabilitationUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations