Development and assessment of PharmaCheck: an electronic screening tool for the prevention of twenty major adverse drug events.
Clinical decision support system (CDSS)
Clinical pharmacy
Clinical rules
Rule-based system
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:
31 05 2022
31 05 2022
Historique:
received:
15
08
2021
accepted:
19
05
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
3
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Adverse drug events (ADEs) can be prevented by deploying clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that directly assist physicians, via computerized order entry systems, and clinical pharmacists performing medication reviews as part of medical rounds. However, physicians using CDSS are known to be exposed to the alert-fatigue phenomenon. Our study aimed to assess the performance of PharmaCheck-a CDSS to help clinical pharmacists detect high-risk situations with the potential to lead to ADEs-and its impact on clinical pharmacists' activities. Twenty clinical rules, divided into four risk classes, were set for the daily screening of high-risk situations in the electronic health records of patients admitted to our General Internal Medicine Department. Alerts to clinical pharmacists encouraged them to telephone prescribers and suggest any necessary treatment adjustments. PharmaCheck's performance was assessed using the intervention's positive predictive value (PPV), which characterizes the proportion of interventions for each alert triggered. PharmaCheck's impact was assessed by considering clinical pharmacists as a filter for ruling out futile alerts and by comparing the final clinical PPV with a pharmacist (the proportion of interventions that led to a change in the medical regimen) to the final clinical PPV without a pharmacist. Over 132 days, 447 alerts were triggered for 383 patients, leading to 90 interventions (overall intervention PPV = 20.1%). By risk class, intervention PPVs made up 26.9% (n = 65/242) of abnormal laboratory value alerts, 3.1% (4/127) of alerts for contraindicated medications or medications to be used with caution, 28.2% (20/71) of drug-drug interaction alerts, and 14.3% (1/7) of inadequate mode of administration alerts. Clinical PPVs reached 71.0% (64/90) when pharmacists filtered alerts and 14% (64/242) if they were not doing it. PharmaCheck enabled clinical pharmacists to improve their traditional processes and broaden their coverage by focusing on 20 high-risk situations. Alert management by pharmacists seemed to be a more effective way of preventing risky situations and alert-fatigue than a model addressing alerts to physicians exclusively. Some fine-tuning could enhance PharmaCheck's performance by considering the information quality of triggers, the variability of clinical settings, and the fact that some prescription processes are already highly secured.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Adverse drug events (ADEs) can be prevented by deploying clinical decision support systems (CDSS) that directly assist physicians, via computerized order entry systems, and clinical pharmacists performing medication reviews as part of medical rounds. However, physicians using CDSS are known to be exposed to the alert-fatigue phenomenon. Our study aimed to assess the performance of PharmaCheck-a CDSS to help clinical pharmacists detect high-risk situations with the potential to lead to ADEs-and its impact on clinical pharmacists' activities.
METHODS
Twenty clinical rules, divided into four risk classes, were set for the daily screening of high-risk situations in the electronic health records of patients admitted to our General Internal Medicine Department. Alerts to clinical pharmacists encouraged them to telephone prescribers and suggest any necessary treatment adjustments. PharmaCheck's performance was assessed using the intervention's positive predictive value (PPV), which characterizes the proportion of interventions for each alert triggered. PharmaCheck's impact was assessed by considering clinical pharmacists as a filter for ruling out futile alerts and by comparing the final clinical PPV with a pharmacist (the proportion of interventions that led to a change in the medical regimen) to the final clinical PPV without a pharmacist.
RESULTS
Over 132 days, 447 alerts were triggered for 383 patients, leading to 90 interventions (overall intervention PPV = 20.1%). By risk class, intervention PPVs made up 26.9% (n = 65/242) of abnormal laboratory value alerts, 3.1% (4/127) of alerts for contraindicated medications or medications to be used with caution, 28.2% (20/71) of drug-drug interaction alerts, and 14.3% (1/7) of inadequate mode of administration alerts. Clinical PPVs reached 71.0% (64/90) when pharmacists filtered alerts and 14% (64/242) if they were not doing it.
CONCLUSION
PharmaCheck enabled clinical pharmacists to improve their traditional processes and broaden their coverage by focusing on 20 high-risk situations. Alert management by pharmacists seemed to be a more effective way of preventing risky situations and alert-fatigue than a model addressing alerts to physicians exclusively. Some fine-tuning could enhance PharmaCheck's performance by considering the information quality of triggers, the variability of clinical settings, and the fact that some prescription processes are already highly secured.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35642053
doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01885-8
pii: 10.1186/s12911-022-01885-8
pmc: PMC9154036
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
146Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 8;166(9):955-64
pubmed: 16682568
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:923
pubmed: 23920697
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Nov;155:104568
pubmed: 34537687
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Aug;18(4):911-8
pubmed: 21689216
Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Oct;37(5):941-8
pubmed: 26047943
N Engl J Med. 1989 Aug 3;321(5):303-9
pubmed: 2664519
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2021 Apr 8;:
pubmed: 33832918
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33236
pubmed: 22438900
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 11;13(10):e0205426
pubmed: 30308067
Int J Med Inform. 2019 May;125:110-117
pubmed: 30914175
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Feb 11;19(1):29
pubmed: 30744674
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2016 Nov;23(6):314-319
pubmed: 31156874
Int J Clin Pharm. 2021 Feb;43(1):137-143
pubmed: 32996074
Cad Saude Publica. 2009;25 Suppl 3:S360-72
pubmed: 20027385
Swiss Med Wkly. 2014 Dec 23;144:w14073
pubmed: 25668157
Pharmacotherapy. 2011 Jul;31(7):658-64
pubmed: 21923452
Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Oct;37(5):687-97
pubmed: 26001356
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021 Jun;46(3):738-743
pubmed: 33768608
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Sep 14;169(16):1465-73
pubmed: 19752403
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 31;7(7):e016070
pubmed: 28760793
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Aug;13(4):306-14
pubmed: 15289635
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Apr 10;17(1):36
pubmed: 28395667
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2016 Feb;7(1):11-22
pubmed: 26834959
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Jun;67(6):681-6
pubmed: 19594538
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014 Sep;23(9):923-32
pubmed: 24817497
Eur J Intern Med. 2015 Jul;26(6):399-406
pubmed: 26066400
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2021 May 27;281:640-644
pubmed: 34042654