Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · ACI open 2024; 08(01): e25-e32
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782534
Research Article

Factors Influencing Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of Frequent Drug–Drug Interaction Alerts

Yasmine Biady
1   School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Teresa Lee
1   School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Lily Pham
1   School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Asad Patanwala
1   School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2   Department of Pharmacy, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
,
Simon Poon
3   School of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Angus Ritchie
4   Department of Nephrology, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Rosemary Burke
5   Department of Pharmacy, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Jonathan Penm
1   School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
6   Department of Pharmacy, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia
› Author Affiliations Funding No funding was received.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) remain a highly prevalent issue for patients in both community and hospital settings. Electronic medication management systems have implemented DDI alerts to mitigate DDI-related harm from occurring.

Objectives The primary aim of this study was to explore factors that influence health care professionals' (hospital doctors, hospital pharmacists, general practitioners, and community pharmacists) perceptions and action taken by them in response to DDI alerts.

Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews between early January and late February 2021. The top 20 most frequently triggered DDI alerts previously identified were used as examples of alert prompts shown to participants.

Results A total of 20 participants were recruited. General practitioners (n = 4) were most likely to consider DDI alerts to be clinically relevant and important, and hospital doctors (n = 4) were most likely to consider these alerts not being clinically relevant nor important. Three main factors were identified to influence health care professionals' perceptions of DDI alerts, which included clinical relevance, visual presentation, and content of alerts.

Conclusion Health care professionals' perceptions of DDI alerts are influenced by multiple factors and considerations are required to create tailored alerts for users and their clinical contexts. Improvement in DDI alerts should be a priority to improve patient medication safety and health outcomes.

Keywords

drug interactions - health care professionals - medication - alert systems

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was conducted at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital as authorized by Sydney Local Health District (protocol number: X20-0533).


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 March 2023

Accepted: 26 January 2024

Article published online:
31 March 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Roughead L, Semple S. Literature Review: Medication Safety in Acute Care in Australia. 2013. Adelaide: Australia: Sansom Institute, University of South;
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Missiakos O, Baysari MT, Day RO. Identifying effective computerized strategies to prevent drug-drug interactions in hospital: a user-centered approach. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (08) 595-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Westbrook JI, Reckmann M, Li L. et al. Effects of two commercial electronic prescribing systems on prescribing error rates in hospital in-patients: a before and after study. PLoS Med 2012; 9 (01) e1001164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lowenstein D, Zheng WY, Burke R. et al. Do user preferences align with human factors assessment scores of drug-drug interaction alerts?. Health Informatics J 2020; 26 (01) 563-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Page NJB, Baysari MT, Westbrook JI. Selection and use of decision support alerts in electronic medication management systems in Australian hospitals: a survey of implementers. J Pharm Pract Res 2019; 49 (02) 142-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Humphrey K, Jorina M, Harper M, Dodson B, Kim S-Y, Ozonoff A. An investigation of drug-drug interaction alert overrides at a pediatric hospital. Hosp Pediatr 2018; 8 (05) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Slight SP, Seger DL, Nanji KC. et al. Are we heeding the warning signs? Examining providers' overrides of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in primary care. PLoS One 2013; 8 (12) e85071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yeh M-L, Chang Y-J, Wang P-Y, Li Y-C, Hsu C-Y. Physicians' responses to computerized drug-drug interaction alerts for outpatients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2013; 111 (01) 17-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Van De Sijpe G, Quintens C, Walgraeve K. et al. Overall performance of a drug-drug interaction clinical decision support system: quantitative evaluation and end-user survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022; 22 (01) 48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wright A, McEvoy DS, Aaron S. et al. Structured override reasons for drug-drug interaction alerts in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (10) 934-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weingart SN, Toth M, Sands DZ, Aronson MD, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163 (21) 2625-2631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cho I, Lee Y, Lee J-H, Bates DW. Wide variation and patterns of physicians' responses to drug-drug interaction alerts. Int J Qual Health Care 2019; 31 (02) 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cho I, Lee J, Han H, Phansalkar S, Bates DW. Evaluation of a Korean version of a tool for assessing the incorporation of human factors into a medication-related decision support system: the I-MeDeSA. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (02) 571-588
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bagri H, Dahri K, Legal M. Hospital pharmacists' perceptions and decision-making related to drug-drug interactions. Can J Hosp Pharm 2019; 72 (04) 288-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fung KW, Kapusnik-Uner J, Cunningham J, Higby-Baker S, Bodenreider O. Comparison of three commercial knowledge bases for detection of drug-drug interactions in clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (04) 806-812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ko Y, Abarca J, Malone DC. et al. Practitioners' views on computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in the VA system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (01) 56-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Van Dort BA, Zheng WY, Baysari MT. Prescriber perceptions of medication-related computerized decision support systems in hospitals: a synthesis of qualitative research. Int J Med Inform 2019; 129: 285-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gatenby J, Blomqvist M, Burke R, Ritchie A, Gibson K, Patanwala AE. Adverse events targeted by drug-drug interaction alerts in hospitalized patients. Int J Med Inform 2020; 143: 104266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Given LM. 100 Questions (and Answers) about Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ. eds. APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological. Worchester, MA: American Psychological Association; 2012: 57-71
    Google Scholar
  • 23 O'Connor C, Joffe H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qual Methods 2020; 19: 1609406919899220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Muylle KM, Gentens K, Dupont AG, Cornu P. Evaluation of an optimized context-aware clinical decision support system for drug-drug interaction screening. Int J Med Inform 2021; 148: 104393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chou E, Boyce RD, Balkan B. et al. Designing and evaluating contextualized drug-drug interaction algorithms. JAMIA Open 2021; 4 (01) ooab023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pirnejad H, Amiri P, Niazkhani Z. et al. Preventing potential drug-drug interactions through alerting decision support systems: a clinical context based methodology. Int J Med Inform 2019; 127: 18-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Feldstein A, Simon SR, Schneider J. et al. How to design computerized alerts to safe prescribing practices. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2004; 30 (11) 602-613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Luna DR, Rizzato Lede DA, Otero CM, Risk MR, González Bernaldo de Quirós F. User-centered design improves the usability of drug-drug interaction alerts: Experimental comparison of interfaces. J Biomed Inform 2017; 66: 204-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Baysari MT, Lowenstein D, Zheng WY, Day RO. Reliability, ease of use and usefulness of I-MeDeSA for evaluating drug-drug interaction alerts in an Australian context. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018; 18 (01) 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Payne TH, Hines LE, Chan RC. et al. Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (06) 1243-1250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yu KH, Sweidan M, Williamson M, Fraser A. Drug interaction alerts in software–what do general practitioners and pharmacists want?. Med J Aust 2011; 195 (11–12): 676-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Abarca J, Malone DC, Skrepnek GH. et al. Community pharmacy managers' perception of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 2006; 46 (02) 148-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Indermitte J, Erba L, Beutler M, Bruppacher R, Haefeli WE, Hersberger KE. Management of potential drug interactions in community pharmacies: a questionnaire-based survey in Switzerland. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63 (03) 297-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Humphrey KE, Mirica M, Phansalkar S, Ozonoff A, Harper MB. Clinician perceptions of timing and presentation of drug-drug interaction alerts. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 487-496
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Moxey A, Robertson J, Newby D, Hains I, Williamson M, Pearson S-A. Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (01) 25-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Jung M, Riedmann D, Hackl WO. et al. Physicians' perceptions on the usefulness of contextual information for prioritizing and presenting alerts in computerized physician order entry systems. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12: 111-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Knight AM, Maygers J, Foltz KA, John IS, Yeh HC, Brotman DJ. The effect of eliminating intermediate severity drug-drug interaction alerts on overall medication alert burden and acceptance rate. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 927-934
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar