Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10(03): 513-520
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693426
Research Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Development and Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System to Improve Medication Safety

Sara Ibáñez-Garcia
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
,
Carmen Rodriguez-Gonzalez
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
,
Vicente Escudero-Vilaplana
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
,
Maria Luisa Martin-Barbero
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
,
Belén Marzal-Alfaro
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
,
Jose Luis De la Rosa-Triviño
2   Ysengineers S.L., Málaga, Spain
,
Irene Iglesias-Peinado
3   Pharmacology Department, College of Pharmacy, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
,
Ana Herranz-Alonso
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
,
Maria Sanjurjo Saez
1   Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
› Author Affiliations Funding This project was supported by iPharma (Pharmacy Innovation Center) through funding received with project PI12/02883 (Instituto de Salud Carlos III).
Further Information

Publication History

23 January 2019

06 June 2019

Publication Date:
17 July 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are a good strategy for preventing medication errors and reducing the incidence and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs). However, these systems are not very effective and are subject to multiple limitations that prevent their implementation in clinical practice.

Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an advanced CDSS, HIGEA, which generates alerts based on predefined clinical rules to identify patients at risk of an ADE.

Methods A multidisciplinary team defined the system and the clinical rules focusing on medication errors commonly encountered in clinical practice. Four intervention programs were defined: (1) dose adjustment in renal impairment; (2) adjustment of anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy; (3) detection of biochemical/hematologic toxicities; and (4) therapeutic drug monitoring. We performed a 6-month observational prospective study to analyze the effectiveness of these clinical rules by calculating the positive predictive value (PPV).

Results The team defined 211 clinical rules. During the study period, HIGEA generated 1,086 alerts (8.9 alerts per working day), which were reviewed by pharmacists. Fifty-one percent (554/1,086) of alerts generated an intervention to prevent a possible ADE; of these, 66% (368/554) required a documented modification to therapy owing to a real prescription error intercepted. The intervention program that induced the highest number of modifications to therapy was the dose adjustment in renal impairment program (PPV = 0.51), followed by the adjustment of anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy program (PPV = 0.24). The percentage of accepted interventions was similar in surgical units (68%), medical units (67%), and critical care units (63%).

Conclusion Our study offers evidence that HIGEA is highly effective in preventing potential ADEs at the prescription stage.

Keywords

clinical decision support - adverse drug event - safety - pharmacy - alerting

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed by Gregorio Marañón Hospital Institutional Review Board.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Kohn LTCJ, Donaldson MS. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N. , et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 (06) 377-384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N. , et al; ADE Prevention Study Group. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. JAMA 1995; 274 (01) 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ. , et al; ADE Prevention Study Group. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA 1995; 274 (01) 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Bobb A, Gleason K, Husch M, Feinglass J, Yarnold PR, Noskin GA. The epidemiology of prescribing errors: the potential impact of computerized prescriber order entry. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164 (07) 785-792
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lewis PJ, Dornan T, Taylor D, Tully MP, Wass V, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2009; 32 (05) 379-389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Franklin BD, Reynolds M, Shebl NA, Burnett S, Jacklin A. Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a three-centre study of their prevalence, types and causes. Postgrad Med J 2011; 87 (1033): 739-745
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163 (12) 1409-1416
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Nuckols TK, Smith-Spangler C, Morton SC. , et al. The effectiveness of computerized order entry at reducing preventable adverse drug events and medication errors in hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014; 3: 56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Kuperman GJ, Bobb A, Payne TH. , et al. Medication-related clinical decision support in computerized provider order entry systems: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (01) 29-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R. , et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (01) 29-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kaushal R, Jha AK, Franz C. , et al; Brigham and Women's Hospital CPOE Working Group. Return on investment for a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (03) 261-266
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Wolfstadt JI, Gurwitz JH, Field TS. , et al. 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 (04) 451-458
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rommers MK, Zegers MH, De Clercq PA. , et al. Development of a computerised alert system, ADEAS, to identify patients at risk for an adverse drug event. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19 (06) e35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Forster AJ, Jennings A, Chow C, Leeder C, van Walraven C. A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (01) 31-38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 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 (02) 138-147
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Azaz-Livshits T, Levy M, Sadan B, Shalit M, Geisslinger G, Brune K. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: pilot study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45 (03) 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Tse CS, Madura AJ. An adverse drug reaction reporting program in a community hospital. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1988; 14 (11) 336-340
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dalton-Bunnow MF, Halvachs FJ. Computer-assisted use of tracer antidote drugs to increase detection of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective and concurrent trial. Hosp Pharm 1993; 28 (08) 746-749
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Levy M, Azaz-Livshits T, Sadan B, Shalit M, Geisslinger G, Brune K. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: implementation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 54 (11) 887-892
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tolley CL, Slight SP, Husband AK, Watson N, Bates DW. Improving medication-related clinical decision support. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018; 75 (04) 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Phansalkar S, Zachariah M, Seidling HM, Mendes C, Volk L, Bates DW. Evaluation of medication alerts in electronic health records for compliance with human factors principles. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (e2): e332-e340
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Schiff GD, Klass D, Peterson J, Shah G, Bates DW. Linking laboratory and pharmacy: opportunities for reducing errors and improving care. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163 (08) 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991; 266 (20) 2847-2851
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Honigman B, Lee J, Rothschild J. , et al. Using computerized data to identify adverse drug events in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8 (03) 254-266
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM. , et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5 (03) 305-314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kane-Gill SL, Dasta JF, Schneider PJ, Cook CH. Monitoring abnormal laboratory values as antecedents to drug-induced injury. J Trauma 2005; 59 (06) 1457-1462
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Schiff GD, Aggarwal HC, Kumar S, McNutt RA. Prescribing potassium despite hyperkalemia: medication errors uncovered by linking laboratory and pharmacy information systems. Am J Med 2000; 109 (06) 494-497
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Szekendi MK, Sullivan C, Bobb A. , et al. Active surveillance using electronic triggers to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15 (03) 184-190
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Silverman JB, Stapinski CD, Huber C, Ghandi TK, Churchill WW. Computer-based system for preventing adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61 (15) 1599-1603
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Wong A, Wright A, Seger DL, Amato MG, Fiskio JM, Bates D. Comparison of overridden medication-related clinical decision support in the intensive care unit between a commercial system and a legacy system. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (03) 866-879
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Awdishu L, Coates CR, Lyddane A. , et al. The impact of real-time alerting on appropriate prescribing in kidney disease: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (03) 609-616
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Tawadrous D, Shariff SZ, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, Jain AK, Garg AX. Use of clinical decision support systems for kidney-related drug prescribing: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 2011; 58 (06) 903-914
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Jha AK, Laguette J, Seger A, Bates DW. Can surveillance systems identify and avert adverse drug events? A prospective evaluation of a commercial application. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (05) 647-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Kilbridge PMAL, Ahmad A. Implementation of a system for computerized adverse drug event surveillance and intervention at an Academic Medical Center. J Clin Outcomes Manag 2006; 13 (02) 94-100
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Nanji KC, Slight SP, Seger DL. , et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (03) 487-491
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Rommers MK, Zwaveling J, Guchelaar HJ, Teepe-Twiss IM. Evaluation of rule effectiveness and positive predictive value of clinical rules in a Dutch clinical decision support system in daily hospital pharmacy practice. Artif Intell Med 2013; 59 (01) 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Hospitalaria SEdF. 2020 Hacia el futuro con seguridad. Madrid: 2015
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Kane-Gill SL, MacLasco AM, Saul MI. , et al. Use of text searching for trigger words in medical records to identify adverse drug reactions within an intensive care unit discharge summary. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (03) 660-671
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Boyce RD, Jao J, Miller T, Kane-Gill SL. Automated screening of emergency department notes for drug-associated bleeding adverse events occurring in older adults. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (04) 1022-1030
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Nightingale PG, Adu D, Richards NT, Peters M. Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study. BMJ 2000; 320 (7237): 750-753
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (25) 2526-2534
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar