Reducing Therapeutic Duplication in Inpatient Medication Orders

Abstract

Background Therapeutic duplication, the presence of multiple agents prescribed for the same indication without clarification for when each should be used, can contribute to serious medical errors. Joint Commission standards require that orders contain clarifying information about when each order should be given. In our system, as needed (PRN) acetaminophen and ibuprofen orders are major contributors to therapeutic duplication.

Objective The objective of this study is to design and evaluate effectiveness of clinical decision support (CDS) to reduce therapeutic duplication with acetaminophen and ibuprofen orders.

Methods This study was done in a pediatric health system with three freestanding hospitals. We iteratively designed and implemented two CDS strategies aimed at reducing the therapeutic duplication with these agents: (1) interruptive alert prompting clinicians for clarifying PRN comments at order entry and (2) addition of discrete “first-line” and “second-line” PRN reasons to orders. Therapeutic duplications were measured by manual review of orders for 30-day periods before and after each intervention and 6 months later.

Results Therapeutic duplications decreased from 1,485 in the 30 days prior to the first alert implementation to 818 in the 30 days after but rose back to 1,208 in the 30 days prior to the second intervention. After discrete reasons were added to the order, therapeutic duplication decreased to 336 in the immediate 30 days and 6 months later remained at 277. Alerts firing rates decreased from 76.0 per 1,000 PRN acetaminophen or ibuprofen orders to 42.9 after the second intervention.

Conclusion Interruptive alerts may reduce therapeutic duplication but are associated with high rates of user frustration and alert fatigue. Leveraging discrete PRN reasons for “first line” and “second line” produced a greater reduction in therapeutic duplication as well as fewer interruptive alerts and less manual entry for providers.

Keywords

clinical decision support - therapeutic duplication - pediatrics

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was part of Quality Improvement Initiative and was deemed nonhuman subjects by the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Institutional Review Board.

Note

This work was presented as a podium abstract at the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium 2022.

Publication History

Received: 07 February 2023

Accepted: 25 April 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
27 April 2023

Article published online:
19 July 2023

• References

• 1 Huynh I, Rajendran T. Therapeutic duplication on the general surgical wards. BMJ Open Qual 2021; 10 (03) e001363
• 2 Witry M, Klein D, Alexander B, Franciscus C, Turvey C. Medication list discrepancies and therapeutic duplications among dual use veterans. Fed Pract 2016; 33 (09) 14-20
• 3 Medication administration – therapeutic duplication versus multimodal therapy. Hospital and Hospital Clinics, Medication Management MM, The Joint Commission. Accessed January 31, 2023 at: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/standard-faqs/hospital-and-hospital-clinics/medication-management-mm/000002339
• 4 Kan W-C, Kuo SC, Chien TW. et al. Therapeutic duplication in Taiwan hospitals for patients with high blood pressure, sugar, and lipids: evaluation with a mobile health mapping tool. JMIR Med Inform 2020; 8 (07) e11627
• 5 Shao S-C, Lai EC-C, Chan Y-Y, Hung M-J, Chen H-Y. Therapeutic duplication of long-acting injectable drugs. J Patient Saf 2018; 14 (03) e74-e75
• 6 Phansalkar S, Wright A, Kuperman GJ. et al. Towards meaningful medication-related clinical decision support: recommendations for an initial implementation. Appl Clin Inform 2011; 2 (01) 50-62
• 7 Kuo N, Su N-Y, Hou S-K, Kang Y-N. Effects of acetaminophen and ibuprofen monotherapy in febrile children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Med Sci 2021; 18 (04) 965-981
• 8 Nabovati E, Vakili-Arki H, Taherzadeh Z. et al. Information technology-based interventions to improve drug-drug interaction outcomes: a systematic review on features and effects. J Med Syst 2017; 41 (01) 12
• 9 Co Z, Holmgren AJ, Classen DC. et al. The development and piloting of the ambulatory electronic health record evaluation tool: lessons learned. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (01) 153-163
• 10 Schumacher RM, Lowry SZ, Locke G, Gallagher PD. NIST Guide to the Processes Approach for Improving the Usability of Electronic Health Records National Institute of Standards and Technology. US Department of Commerce; 2010: 1-63
• 11 Kandaswamy S, Gill A, Wood S. et al. User-centered design of central venous access device documentation. JAMIA Open 2022; 5 (01) ooac011
• 12 Mrosak J, Kandaswamy S, Stokes C, Roth D, Dave I, Gillespie S, Orenstein E. The influence of integrating clinical practice guideline order bundles into a general admission order set on guideline adoption. JAMIA open 2021; 4 (04) ooab087
• 13 Orenstein EW, Boudreaux J, Rollins M. et al. Formative usability testing reduces severe blood product ordering errors. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 981-990
• 14 Aaron S, McEvoy DS, Ray S, Hickman T-TT, Wright A. Cranky comments: detecting clinical decision support malfunctions through free-text override reasons. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (01) 37-43
• 15 Campbell R, James R. The five “rights” of clinical decision support. J AHIMA 2013; 84 (10) 42-47 , quiz 48
• 16 Nielsen J, Molich R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 249–256. Seattle, WA: Association for Computing Machinery; 1990