» Articles » PMID: 22374346

Comparative Evaluation of Three Clinical Decision Support Systems: Prospective Screening for Medication Errors in 100 Medical Inpatients

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2012 Mar 1
PMID 22374346
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are promoted as powerful screening tools to improve pharmacotherapy. The aim of our study was to evaluate the potential contribution of CDSS to patient management in clinical practice.

Methods: We prospectively analyzed the pharmacotherapy of 100 medical inpatients through the parallel use of three CDSS, namely, Pharmavista, DrugReax, and TheraOpt. After expert discussion that also considered all patient-specific clinical information, we selected apparently relevant alerts, issued suitable recommendations to physicians, and recorded subsequent prescription changes.

Results: For 100 patients with a median of eight concomitant drugs, Pharmavista, DrugReax, and TheraOpt generated a total of 53, 362, and 328 interaction alerts, respectively. Among those we identified and forwarded 33 clinically relevant alerts to the attending physician, resulting in 19 prescription changes. Four adverse drug events were associated with interactions. The proportion of clinically relevant alerts among all alerts (positive predictive value) was 5.7, 8.0, and 7.6%, and the sensitivity to detect all 33 relevant alerts was 9.1, 87.9, and 75.8% for Pharmavista, DrugReax and TheraOpt, respectively. TheraOpt recommended 31 dose adjustments, of which we considered 11 to be relevant; three of these were followed by dose reductions.

Conclusions: CDSS are valuable screening tools for medication errors, but only a small fraction of their alerts appear relevant in individual patients. In order to avoid overalerting CDSS should use patient-specific information and management-oriented classifications. Comprehensive information should be displayed on-demand, whereas a limited number of computer-triggered alerts that have management implications in the majority of affected patients should be based on locally customized and supported algorithms.

Citing Articles

Automatic Detection of Adverse Drug Events in Geriatric Care: Study Proposal.

Gaspar F, Lutters M, Beeler P, Lang P, Burnand B, Rinaldi F JMIR Res Protoc. 2022; 11(11):e40456.

PMID: 36378522 PMC: 9709671. DOI: 10.2196/40456.


Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review.

Damoiseaux-Volman B, Medlock S, van der Meulen D, de Boer J, Romijn J, Van der Velde N Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021; 88(5):2035-2051.

PMID: 34837238 PMC: 9299995. DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15160.


The Influence of Pharmacogenetics on the Clinical Relevance of Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions: Drug-Gene, Drug-Gene-Gene and Drug-Drug-Gene Interactions.

Hahn M, Roll S Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021; 14(5).

PMID: 34065361 PMC: 8160673. DOI: 10.3390/ph14050487.


Potentially inappropriate medications and medication combinations before, during and after hospitalizations: an analysis of pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting.

Migliazza K, Bahler C, Liedtke D, Signorell A, Boes S, Blozik E BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):522.

PMID: 34049550 PMC: 8164287. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06550-w.


Towards Personalized Antithrombotic Treatments: Focus on P2Y Inhibitors and Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

Terrier J, Daali Y, Fontana P, Csajka C, Reny J Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019; 58(12):1517-1532.

PMID: 31250210 DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00792-y.


References
1.
Wolfstadt J, Gurwitz J, Field T, Lee M, Kalkar S, Wu W . The effect of computerized physician order entry with clinical decision support on the rates of adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23(4):451-8. PMC: 2359507. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0504-5. View

2.
Bates D, Cullen D, Laird N, Petersen L, Small S, Servi D . Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995; 274(1):29-34. View

3.
Olvey E, Clauschee S, Malone D . Comparison of critical drug-drug interaction listings: the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system and standard reference compendia. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 87(1):48-51. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2009.198. View

4.
van Doormaal J, Van den Bemt P, Zaal R, Egberts A, Lenderink B, Kosterink J . The influence that electronic prescribing has on medication errors and preventable adverse drug events: an interrupted time-series study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009; 16(6):816-25. PMC: 3002127. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3099. View

5.
Shah N, Seger A, Seger D, Fiskio J, Kuperman G, Blumenfeld B . Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005; 13(1):5-11. PMC: 1380196. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M1868. View