nach oben

Drug Safety

Erschienen in:

01.06.2013 | Short Communication

Use of an On-demand Drug–Drug Interaction Checker by Prescribers and Consultants: A Retrospective Analysis in a Swiss Teaching Hospital

verfasst von: Patrick Emanuel Beeler, Emmanuel Eschmann, Christoph Rosen, Jürg Blaser

Erschienen in: Drug Safety | Ausgabe 6/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Offering a drug–drug interaction (DDI) checker on-demand instead of computer-triggered alerts is a strategy to avoid alert fatigue.

Objective

The purpose was to determine the use of such an on-demand tool, implemented in the clinical information system for inpatients.

Methods

The study was conducted at the University Hospital Zurich, an 850-bed teaching hospital. The hospital-wide use of the on-demand DDI checker was measured for prescribers and consulting pharmacologists. The number of DDIs identified on-demand was compared to the number that would have resulted by computer-triggering and this was compared to patient-specific recommendations by a consulting pharmacist.

Results

The on-demand use was analyzed during treatment of 64,259 inpatients with 1,316,884 prescriptions. The DDI checker was popular with nine consulting pharmacologists (648 checks/consultant). A total of 644 prescribing physicians used it infrequently (eight checks/prescriber). Among prescribers, internists used the tool most frequently and obtained higher numbers of DDIs per check (1.7) compared to surgeons (0.4). A total of 16,553 DDIs were identified on-demand, i.e., <10 % of the number the computer would have triggered (169,192). A pharmacist visiting 922 patients on a medical ward recommended 128 adjustments to prevent DDIs (0.14 recommendations/patient), and 76 % of them were applied by prescribers. In contrast, computer-triggering the DDI checker would have resulted in 45 times more alerts on this ward (6.3 alerts/patient).

Conclusions

The on-demand DDI checker was popular with the consultants only. However, prescribers accepted 76 % of patient-specific recommendations by a pharmacist. The prescribers’ limited on-demand use indicates the necessity for developing improved safety concepts, tailored to suit these consumers. Thus, different approaches have to satisfy different target groups.

Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington: National Academies Press; 2000.

Leendertse AJ, Egberts AC, Stoker LJ, van den Bemt PM. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(17):1890–6.PubMedCrossRef

Hamilton RA, Briceland LL, Andritz MH. Frequency of hospitalization after exposure to known drug–drug interactions in a Medicaid population. Pharmacotherapy. 1998;18(5):1112–20.PubMed

Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280(15):1311–6.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Payne TH, Nichol WP, Hoey P, Savarino J. Characteristics and override rates of order checks in a practitioner order entry system. In: Proceedings of the AMIA symposium, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 2002. pp. 602–6.

Tamblyn R, Huang A, Taylor L, Kawasumi Y, Bartlett G, Grad R, et al. A randomized trial of the effectiveness of on-demand versus computer-triggered drug decision support in primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(4):430–8.PubMedCrossRef

Oren E, Shaffer ER, Guglielmo BJ. Impact of emerging technologies on medication errors and adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(14):1447–58.PubMed

Seidling HM, Phansalkar S, Seger DL, Paterno MD, Shaykevich S, Haefeli WE, et al. Factors influencing alert acceptance: a novel approach for predicting the success of clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(4):479–84.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Strom BL, Schinnar R, Aberra F, Bilker W, Hennessy S, Leonard CE, et al. Unintended effects of a computerized physician order entry nearly hard-stop alert to prevent a drug interaction a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(17):1578–83.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Phansalkar S, Desai AA, Bell D, Yoshida E, Doole J, Czochanski M, et al. High-priority drug–drug interactions for use in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(5):735–43.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Mannheimer B, Eliasson E. Drug–drug interactions that reduce the formation of pharmacologically active metabolites: a poorly understood problem in clinical practice. J Intern Med. 2010;268(6):540–8.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Paterno MD, Maviglia SM, Gorman PN, Seger DL, Yoshida E, Seger AC, et al. Tiering drug–drug interaction alerts by severity increases compliance rates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(1):40–6.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Hansten PD, Horn JR, Hazlet TK. ORCA: OpeRational ClassificAtion of drug interactions. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2001;41(2):161–5.

16.

Beeler PE, Kucher N, Blaser J. Sustained impact of electronic alerts on rate of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost. 2011;106(4):734–8.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Weingart SN, Seger AC, Feola N, Heffernan J, Schiff G, Isaac T. Electronic drug interaction alerts in ambulatory care: the value and acceptance of high-value alerts in US medical practices as assessed by an expert clinical panel. Drug Saf. 2011;34(7):587–93.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Oertle M. Frequency and nature of drug–drug interactions in a Swiss primary and secondary acute care hospital. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:0.PubMed

19.

Morrell J, Podlone M, Cohen SN. Receptivity of physicians in a teaching hospital to a computerized drug interaction monitoring and reporting system. Med Care. 1977;15(1):68–78.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Eppenga WL, Derijks HJ, Conemans JM, Hermens WA, Wensing M, De Smet PA. Comparison of a basic and an advanced pharmacotherapy-related clinical decision support system in a hospital care setting in the Netherlands. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):66–71.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Glassman PA, Belperio P, Simon B, Lanto A, Lee M. Exposure to automated drug alerts over time: effects on clinicians’ knowledge and perceptions. Med Care. 2006;44(3):250–6.PubMedCrossRef

22.

van der Sijs H, Aarts J, van Gelder T, Berg M, Vulto A. Turning off frequently overridden drug alerts: limited opportunities for doing it safely. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(4):439–48.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Seidling HM, Storch CH, Bertsche T, Senger C, Kaltschmidt J, Walter-Sack I, et al. Successful strategy to improve the specificity of electronic statin–drug interaction alerts. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;65(11):1149–57.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Terrell KM, Perkins AJ, Hui SL, Callahan CM, Dexter PR, Miller DK. Computerized decision support for medication dosing in renal insufficiency: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(6):623–9.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Abarca J, Malone DC, Armstrong EP, Grizzle AJ, Hansten PD, Van Bergen RC, et al. Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2004;44(2):136–41.CrossRef

26.

Zorina OI, Haueis P, Semmler A, Marti I, Gonzenbach RR, Guzek M, et al. Comparative evaluation of the drug interaction screening programs MediQ and ID PHARMA CHECK in neurological inpatients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(8):872–80.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Smith WD, Hatton RC, Fann AL, Baz MA, Kaplan B. Evaluation of drug interaction software to identify alerts for transplant medications. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(1):45–50.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Smithburger PL, Kane-Gill SL, Benedict NJ, Falcione BA, Seybert AL. Grading the severity of drug–drug interactions in the intensive care unit: a comparison between clinician assessment and proprietary database severity rankings. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(11):1718–24.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Bottiger Y, Laine K, Andersson ML, Korhonen T, Molin B, Ovesjo ML, et al. SFINX—a drug–drug interaction database designed for clinical decision support systems. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;65(6):627–33.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Grizzle AJ, Mahmood MH, Ko Y, Murphy JE, Armstrong EP, Skrepnek GH, et al. Reasons provided by prescribers when overriding drug–drug interaction alerts. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(10):573–8.PubMed

Titel: Use of an On-demand Drug–Drug Interaction Checker by Prescribers and Consultants: A Retrospective Analysis in a Swiss Teaching Hospital
verfasst von: Patrick Emanuel Beeler
Emmanuel Eschmann
Christoph Rosen
Jürg Blaser
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2013
Verlag: Springer International Publishing AG
Erschienen in: Drug Safety / Ausgabe 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0022-1

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Use of an On-demand Drug–Drug Interaction Checker by Prescribers and Consultants: A Retrospective Analysis in a Swiss Teaching Hospital

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2013

Safety of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines: A Review

Teratogenic Risk Perception and Confidence in Use of Medicines in Pairs of Pregnant Women and General Practitioners Based on Patient Information Leaflets

The Effects of Antitussive Treatment of ACE Inhibitor-Induced Cough on Therapy Compliance: A Prescription Sequence Symmetry Analysis

The PREGVAXGRIP Study: a Cohort Study to Assess Foetal and Neonatal Consequences of In Utero Exposure to Vaccination Against A(H1N1)v2009 Influenza

Antipsychotics and Torsadogenic Risk: Signals Emerging from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database

Baseline Correction in Parallel Thorough QT Studies