Development of an algorithm to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment and its technical realisation.
Clinical decision support systems
Medication regimen complexity
Polypharmacy
Self-administration
Shared decision making
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 07 2020
08 07 2020
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
accepted:
24
06
2020
entrez:
10
7
2020
pubmed:
10
7
2020
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The increasing complexity of current drug therapies jeopardizes patient adherence. While individual needs to simplify a medication regimen vary from patient to patient, a straightforward approach to integrate the patients' perspective into decision making for complexity reduction is still lacking. We therefore aimed to develop an electronic, algorithm-based tool that analyses complexity of drug treatment and supports the assessment and consideration of patient preferences and needs regarding the reduction of complexity of drug treatment. Complexity factors were selected based on literature and expert rating and specified for integration in the automated assessment. Subsequently, distinct key questions were phrased and allocated to each complexity factor to guide conversation with the patient and personalize the results of the automated assessment. Furthermore, each complexity factor was complemented with a potential optimisation measure to facilitate drug treatment (e.g. a patient leaflet). Complexity factors, key questions, and optimisation strategies were technically realized as tablet computer-based application, tested, and adapted iteratively until no further technical or content-related errors occurred. In total, 61 complexity factors referring to the dosage form, the dosage scheme, additional instructions, the patient, the product, and the process were considered relevant for inclusion in the tool; 38 of them allowed for automated detection. In total, 52 complexity factors were complemented with at least one key question for preference assessment and at least one optimisation measure. These measures included 29 recommendations for action for the health care provider (e.g. to suggest a dosage aid), 27 training videos, 44 patient leaflets, and 5 algorithms to select and suggest alternative drugs. Both the set-up of an algorithm and its technical realisation as computer-based app was successful. The electronic tool covers a wide range of different factors that potentially increase the complexity of drug treatment. For the majority of factors, simple key questions could be phrased to include the patients' perspective, and, even more important, for each complexity factor, specific measures to mitigate or reduce complexity could be defined.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The increasing complexity of current drug therapies jeopardizes patient adherence. While individual needs to simplify a medication regimen vary from patient to patient, a straightforward approach to integrate the patients' perspective into decision making for complexity reduction is still lacking. We therefore aimed to develop an electronic, algorithm-based tool that analyses complexity of drug treatment and supports the assessment and consideration of patient preferences and needs regarding the reduction of complexity of drug treatment.
METHODS
Complexity factors were selected based on literature and expert rating and specified for integration in the automated assessment. Subsequently, distinct key questions were phrased and allocated to each complexity factor to guide conversation with the patient and personalize the results of the automated assessment. Furthermore, each complexity factor was complemented with a potential optimisation measure to facilitate drug treatment (e.g. a patient leaflet). Complexity factors, key questions, and optimisation strategies were technically realized as tablet computer-based application, tested, and adapted iteratively until no further technical or content-related errors occurred.
RESULTS
In total, 61 complexity factors referring to the dosage form, the dosage scheme, additional instructions, the patient, the product, and the process were considered relevant for inclusion in the tool; 38 of them allowed for automated detection. In total, 52 complexity factors were complemented with at least one key question for preference assessment and at least one optimisation measure. These measures included 29 recommendations for action for the health care provider (e.g. to suggest a dosage aid), 27 training videos, 44 patient leaflets, and 5 algorithms to select and suggest alternative drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the set-up of an algorithm and its technical realisation as computer-based app was successful. The electronic tool covers a wide range of different factors that potentially increase the complexity of drug treatment. For the majority of factors, simple key questions could be phrased to include the patients' perspective, and, even more important, for each complexity factor, specific measures to mitigate or reduce complexity could be defined.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32641027
doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01162-6
pii: 10.1186/s12911-020-01162-6
pmc: PMC7346621
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
154Subventions
Organisme : Innovation Funds of The Federal Joint Committee, Germany
ID : 01VSF16019
Pays : International
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : funding programme Open Access Publishing by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts and by Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
Pays : International
Références
Int J Clin Pharm. 2014 Apr;36(2):233-42
pubmed: 24293334
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016 Jun;71(6):831-7
pubmed: 26707381
Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Oct;28(5):634-638
pubmed: 27512127
Drug Saf. 2013 Jan;36(1):31-41
pubmed: 23315294
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Jun;76(6):745-754
pubmed: 32239242
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014 Aug;13(8):1101-14
pubmed: 24921682
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 May 1;25(5):593-602
pubmed: 29036406
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 May 1;20(3):499-505
pubmed: 23268486
Int J Pharm. 2017 Jan 30;517(1-2):128-134
pubmed: 27931784
Fam Pract. 2013 Feb;30(1):56-63
pubmed: 22904014
Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Sep;38(9):1369-76
pubmed: 15266038
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Feb;16(2):77-82
pubmed: 11251757
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004 Jul 1;61(13):1380-4
pubmed: 15287234
J Eval Clin Pract. 2016 Feb;22(1):10-19
pubmed: 26009977
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Sep 16;15:219
pubmed: 26376830
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014 Jul;23(7):768-72
pubmed: 24723311
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Apr;65(4):747-753
pubmed: 27991653
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012 Dec;37(6):637-42
pubmed: 22607618
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar 15;181(6):566-77
pubmed: 20019345
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013 Apr;69(4):937-48
pubmed: 23052416
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009 Jun 12;9:30
pubmed: 19523205
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Nov;73(11):1475-1489
pubmed: 28779460
J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008 Dec;20(12):600-7
pubmed: 19120591