Attitude of Physicians Towards Automatic Alerting in Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems

M. Jung; A. Hoerbst; W. O. Hackl; F. Kirrane; D. Borbolla; M. W. Jaspers; M. Oertle; V. Koutkias; L. Ferret; P. Massari; K. Lawton; D. Riedmann; S. Darmoni; N. Maglaveras; C. Lovis; E. Ammenwerth

doi:10.3414/ME12-02-0007

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2013; 52(02): 99-108
DOI: 10.3414/ME12-02-0007

Original Articles

Schattauer GmbH

Attitude of Physicians Towards Automatic Alerting in Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems^[*]

A Comparative International Survey

Authors

M. Jung

¹Institute of Health Informatics, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Mechatronics, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
A. Hoerbst

¹Institute of Health Informatics, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Mechatronics, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria

²Research Division for eHealth and Telemedicine, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
W. O. Hackl

¹Institute of Health Informatics, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Mechatronics, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
F. Kirrane

³Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
D. Borbolla

⁴Health Informatics Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires City, Argentina
M. W. Jaspers

⁵Centre for Human Factors Engineering of Health Interactive Technology (HIT-lab), Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center – University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M. Oertle

⁶Medical Informatics and Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of Thun, Thun, Switzerland
V. Koutkias

⁷Lab of Medical Informatics, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
L. Ferret

⁸Pharmacy Department, Hospital of Denain, Denain, France

⁹EA2694, University Hospital of Lille, Lille, France
P. Massari

¹⁰CISMeF & TIBS team, LITIS EA 4108, Rouen University Hospital, Normandy, France
K. Lawton

¹¹IT, Medical Technology and Telephony Services of Capital Region, Copenhagen, Denmark
D. Riedmann

¹Institute of Health Informatics, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Mechatronics, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
S. Darmoni

¹⁰CISMeF & TIBS team, LITIS EA 4108, Rouen University Hospital, Normandy, France
N. Maglaveras

⁷Lab of Medical Informatics, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
C. Lovis

¹²Division of Medical Information Sciences, University Hospitals of Geneva and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
E. Ammenwerth

¹Institute of Health Informatics, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Mechatronics, UMIT – University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: To analyze the attitude of physicians towards alerting in CPOE systems in different hospitals in different countries, addressing various organizational and technical settings and the view of physicians not currently using a CPOE.

Methods: A cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative questionnaire survey. We invited 2,600 physicians in eleven hospitals from nine countries to participate. Eight of the hospitals had different CPOE systems in use, and three of the participating hospitals were not using a CPOE system.

Results: 1,018 physicians participated. The general attitude of the physicians towards CPOE alerting is positive and is found to be mostly independent of the country, the specific organizational settings in the hospitals and their personal experience with CPOE systems. Both quantitative and qualitative results show that the majority of the physicians, both CPOE-users and non-users, appreciate the benefits of alerting in CPOE systems on medication safety. However, alerting should be better adapted to the clinical context and make use of more sophisticated ways to present alert information. The vast majority of physicians agree that additional information regarding interactions is useful on demand. Around half of the respondents see possible alert overload as a major problem; in this regard, physicians in hospitals with sophisticated alerting strategies show partly better attitude scores.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that the way alerting information is presented to the physicians may play a role in their general attitude towards alerting, and that hospitals with a sophisticated alerting strategy with less interruptive alerts tend towards more positive attitudes. This aspect needs to be further investigated in future studies.

Keywords

Medical order entry systems - clinical decision support systems - attitude - questionnaires - alerting

Full Text

References

References
1 Institute of Medicine. Preventing Medication Errors: Quality Chasm Series. Aspden P, Wolcott J, Bootman J. editors Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2006.
2 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC: National Academic Press; 2000.
3 White SV. Patient Safety Issues. In Byers JF, White SV. editors Patient Safety: Principles and Practice. New York: Springer; 2004.
4 Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N. et al Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995; 274 (01) 29-34.
5 Benkirane RR, Abouqal R, Haimeur CC. et al Incidence of adverse drug events and medication errors in intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study. J Patient Saf 2009; 5 (01) 16-22.
6 Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C. et al The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (05) 585-600.
7 Kaushal R, Bates DW. Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Chapter 6: Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) with Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AHRQ;2001 Jul 20. Report No.: 43 Contract No.: 290–97–0013.
8 Bonnabry P, Despont-Gros C, Grauser D. et al A risk analysis method to evaluate the impact of a computerized provider order entry system on patient safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (04) 453-460.
9 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A. et al Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293 (10) 1197-1203.
10 Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST. et al Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (06) 1506-1512.
11 Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS. et al Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (05) 547-556.
12 Sittig DF, Krall M, Kaalaas-Sittig J. et al Emotional aspects of computer-based provider order entry: a qualitative study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (05) 561-567.
13 Khajouei R, Jaspers MW. The impact of CPOE medication systems’ design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders: a systematic review. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49 (01) 3-19.
14 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra RH. et al Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76 Suppl (Suppl. 01) S21-27.
15 Ammenwerth E, Talmon J, Ash JS. et al Impact of CPOE on mortality rates-contradictory findings, important messages. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (06) 586-593.
16 Ash JS, Stavri PZ, Dykstra R. et al Implementing computerized physician order entry: the importance of special people. Int J Med Inform 2003; 69 2–3 235-250.
17 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Poon EG. et al The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (04) 415-423.
18 Georgiou A, Lang S, Alvaro F. et al Pathology’s front line - a comparison of the experiences of electronic ordering in the clinical chemistry and haematology departments. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007; 130: 121-132.
19 Saathoff A. Human factors considerations relevant to CPOE implementations. J Healthc Inf Manag 2005; 19 (03) 71-78.
20 Snyder R, Weston MJ, Fields W. et al Computerized provider order entry system field research: the impact of contextual factors on study implementation. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75 10–11 730-740.
21 Wentzer HS, Bottger U, Boye N. Unintended transformations of clinical relations with a computerized physician order entry system. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76 Suppl (Suppl. 03) S456-461.
22 Hor CP, O’Donnell JM, Murphy AW. et al General practitioners’ attitudes and preparedness towards Clinical Decision Support in e-Prescribing (CDS-eP) adoption in the West of Ireland: a cross sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010; 10: 2
23 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.
24 Magnus D, Rodgers S, Avery AJ. GPs’ views on computerized drug interaction alerts: questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27 (05) 377-382.
25 Allenet B, Bedouch P, Bourget S. et al Physicians’ perception of CPOE implementation. Int J Clin Pharm 2011; 33 (04) 656-664.
26 Khajouei R, Wierenga PC, Hasman A. et al Clinicians satisfaction with CPOE ease of use and effect on clinicians’ workflow, efficiency and medication safety. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (05) 297-309.
27 Holden RJ. Physicians’ beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: in pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (02) 71-80.
28 Yu KH, Sweidan M, Williamson M. et al Drug interaction alerts in software-what do general practitioners and pharmacists want?. Med J Aust 2011; 195 11–12 676-680.
29 Ahearn MD, Kerr SJ. General practitioners’ perceptions of the pharmaceutical decision-support tools in their prescribing software. Med J Aust 2003; 179 (01) 34-37.
30 Weingart SN, Simchowitz B, Shiman L. et al Clinicians’ assessments of electronic medication safety alerts in ambulatory care. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (17) 1627-1632.
31 Sittig DF, Krall MA, Dykstra RH. et al A survey of factors affecting clinician acceptance of clinical decision support. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 6
32 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.
33 Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis. FQS: Qualitative Methods in Various Disciplines I: Psychology [serial on the Internet]. 2000 [cited 2011 Aug 3]; 1(2): Available from. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385.
34 Oertle M. Frequency and nature of drug-drug interactions in a Swiss primary and secondary acute care hospital. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: 0
35 Borbolla D, Otero C, Lobach DF. et al Implementation of a clinical decision support system using a service model: results of a feasibility study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 Pt 2 816-820.
36 Glassman PA, Simon B, Belperio P. et al Improving recognition of drug interactions: benefits and barriers to using automated drug alerts. Med Care 2002; 40 (12) 1161-1171.
37 Taylor LK, Tamblyn R. Reasons for physician non-adherence to electronic drug alerts. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 Pt 2 1101-1105.
38 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.
39 Eppenga WL, Derijks HJ, Conemans JM. et al Comparison of a basic and an advanced pharmacotherapy-related clinical decision support system in a hospital care setting in the Netherlands. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (01) 66-71.
40 Imhoff M, Kuhls S. Alarm algorithms in critical care monitoring. Anesth Analg 2006; 102 (05) 1525-1537.
41 Lawless ST. Crying wolf: false alarms in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1994; 22 (06) 981-985.
42 Jaspers MW, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H. et al Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (03) 327-334.
43 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S. et al Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (06) 523-530.
44 van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A. et al Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (02) 138-147.
45 Riedmann D, Jung M, Hackl WO. et al Development of a context model to prioritize drug safety alerts in CPOE systems. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011; 11 (01) 35
46 Riedmann D, Jung M, Hackl WO. et al How to improve the delivery of medication alerts within computerized physician order entry systems: an international Delphi study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011.
47 Wipfli R, Lovis C. Alerts in clinical information systems: building frameworks and prototypes. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 155: 163-169.
48 van der Sijs H, van Gelder T, Vulto A. et al Understanding handling of drug safety alerts: a simulation study. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (05) 361-369.
49 Kirchner M, Burkle T, Patapovas A. et al Building the technical infrastructure to support a study on drug safety in a general hospital. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 169: 325-329.
50 Langemeijer MM, Peute LW, Jaspers MW. Impact of alert specifications on clinicians’ adherence. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 169: 930-934.

Supplementary Material

Online Supplementary Material (PDF) (PDF) (opens in new window)

Attitude of Physicians Towards Automatic Alerting in Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems[*]

Authors

Attitude of Physicians Towards Automatic Alerting in Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems^[*]