Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Wellesley, MA, United States

Cho I.,Inha University | Cho I.,Brigham and Womens Hospital | Cho I.,Harvard University | Lee J.-H.,Brigham and Womens Hospital | And 8 more authors.
International Journal of Medical Informatics | Year: 2015

Background: Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support is expected to deliver many benefits in terms of patient safety. The Leapfrog tool was developed to allow hospitals to assess their medication-safety related decision support. To explore the approach's generalizability, we examined its acceptability and feasibility through an evaluation using this tool in four Korean hospital systems. Methods: Four hospitals with locally developed CPOE systems participated, and a cross-sectional study design was used with the approval of the Leapfrog Group and the institutional review board at each hospital site. The hospitals were tertiary and academic institutions with long experience of advanced CPOE. From January 21 to 28, 2014, web-based tests were conducted at each site following the given instructions, and the results were self-reported. We measured each system's response rate, category completion rate, and time to complete the evaluation. Additionally, we compared the evaluation results of the four systems with scores from five US systems, as was reported in another study. Results: The four systems underwent the tests, and the overall category completion rates ranged from 67.9% to 75.5%. The times to finish the tests were tolerable and within the allowed test timeframe. One system did not pass the deception analysis, which checks for false positives, due to a conflict with another type of alert checking for the presence of a medical diagnosis for documentation purposes. The other three systems scored at the completed the evaluation stage, with scores ranging from 21.6% to 36.5%. Of the nine error categories, Drug-Allergy was an area of strength for all systems, whereas the categories of Therapeutic duplication, Drug-Labs, and Drug-Age were areas of weakness for all. In comparison with the US systems, gaps were identified, and further improvement is needed. Conclusions: The acceptability of the CPOE evaluation tool was moderate, but the feasibility was sufficient to operate the test outside the US, and the results revealed many opportunities for improvement in the Korean systems, as was the case when this application was introduced in the US. © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Source


Cho I.,Inha University | Cho I.,Harvard University | Cho I.,Brigham and Womens Hospital | Park H.,Inha University | And 5 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2014

Objectives: We investigated incidence rates to understand the nature of medication errors potentially introduced by utilizing a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system in the three clinical phases of the medication process: prescription, administration, and documentation. Methods: Overt observations and chart reviews were employed at two surgical intensive care units of a 950-bed tertiary teaching hospital. Ten categories of high-risk drugs prescribed over a four-month period were noted and reviewed. Error definition and classifications were adapted from previous studies for use in the present research. Incidences of medication errors in the three phases of the medication process were analyzed. In addition, nurses' responses to prescription errors were also assessed. Results: Of the 534 prescriptions issued, 286 (53.6%) included at least one error. The proportion of errors was 19.0% (58) of the 306 drug administrations, of which two-thirds were verbal orders classified as errors due to incorrectly entered prescriptions. Documentation errors occurred in 205 (82.7%) of 248 correctly performed administrations. When tracking incorrectly entered prescriptions, 93% of the errors were intercepted by nurses, but two-thirds of them were recorded as prescribed rather than administered. Conclusion: The number of errors occurring at each phase of the medication process was relatively high, despite long experience with a CPOE system. The main causes of administration errors and documentation errors were prescription errors and verbal order processes. To reduce these errors, hospital-level and unit-level efforts toward a better system are needed. © 2014 Cho et al. This. Source


McMullen C.K.,Kaiser Permanente | Safford M.M.,University of Alabama at Birmingham | Bosworth H.B.,Duke University | Phansalkar S.,Partners Healthcare Systems Inc. | And 18 more authors.
Patient Education and Counseling | Year: 2015

Objective: The Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics convened a workshop to examine the scientific evidence on medication adherence interventions from the patient-centered perspective and to explore the potential of patient-centered medication management to improve chronic disease treatment. Methods: Patients, providers, researchers, and other stakeholders (N (28) identified and prioritized ideas for future research and practice. We analyzed stakeholder voting on priorities and reviewed themes in workshop discussions. Results: Ten priority areas emerged. Three areas were highly rated by all stakeholder groups: creating tools and systems to facilitate and evaluate patient-centered medication management plans; developing training on patient-centered prescribing for providers; and increasing patients' knowledge about medication management. However, priorities differed across stakeholder groups. Notably, patients prioritized using peer support to improve medication management while researchers did not. Conclusion: Engaging multiple stakeholders in setting a patient-centered research agenda and broadening the scope of adherence interventions to include other aspects of medication management resulted in priorities outside the traditional scope of adherence research. Practice Implications: Workshop participants recognized the potential benefits of patient-centered medication management but also identified many challenges to implementation that require additional research and innovation. © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Source


Phansalkar S.,Partners Healthcare Systems Inc. | Phansalkar S.,Harvard University | Desai A.,Partners Healthcare Systems Inc. | Choksi A.,University of Chicago | And 10 more authors.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Year: 2013

Background: High override rates for drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts in electronic health records (EHRs) result in the potentially dangerous consequence of providers ignoring clinically significant alerts. Lack of uniformity of criteria for determining the severity or validity of these interactions often results in discrepancies in how these are evaluated. The purpose of this study was to identify a set of criteria for assessing DDIs that should be used for the generation of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts in EHRs. Methods. We conducted a 20-year systematic literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify characteristics of high-priority DDIs. These criteria were validated by an expert panel consisting of medication knowledge base vendors, EHR vendors, in-house knowledge base developers from academic medical centers, and both federal and private agencies involved in the regulation of medication use. Results: Forty-four articles met the inclusion criteria for assessing characteristics of high-priority DDIs. The panel considered five criteria to be most important when assessing an interaction- Severity, Probability, Clinical Implications of the interaction, Patient characteristics, and the Evidence supporting the interaction. In addition, the panel identified barriers and considerations for being able to utilize these criteria in medication knowledge bases used by EHRs. Conclusions: A multi-dimensional approach is needed to understanding the importance of an interaction for inclusion in medication knowledge bases for the purpose of CDS alerting. The criteria identified in this study can serve as a first step towards a uniform approach in assessing which interactions are critical and warrant interruption of a provider's workflow. © 2013 Phansalkar et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source


Beeler P.E.,Brigham and Womens Hospital | Beeler P.E.,Harvard University | Beeler P.E.,University of Zurich | John Orav E.,Brigham and Womens Hospital | And 7 more authors.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association | Year: 2016

Objective: Variation in the use of tests and treatments has been demonstrated to be substantial between providers and geographic regions. This study assessed variation between outpatient providers in overriding electronic prescribing warnings. Methods: Responses to warnings were prospectively logged. Random effects models were used to calculate provider-to-provider variation in the rates for the decisions to override warnings in 6 different clinical domains: medication allergies, drug-drug interactions, duplicate drugs, renal recommendations, age-based recommendations, and formulary substitutions. Results: A total of 157 482 responses were logged. Differences between 1717 providers accounted for 11% of the overall variability in override rates, so that while the average override rate was 45.2%, individual provider rates had a wide range with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (13.7%-76.7% ). The highest variations between providers were observed in the categories age-based (25.4% of total variability; average override rate 70.2% [95% CI, 29.1%-100% ]) and renal recommendations (24.2%; average 70% [95% CI, 29.5%-100% ]), and provider responses within these 2 categories were most often clinically inappropriate according to prior work. Among providers who received at least 10 age-based recommendations, 64 of 238 (27%) overrode ≥90% of the warnings and 13 of 238 (5%) overrode all of them. Of those who received at least 10 renal recommendations, 36 of 92 (39%) overrode ≥90% of the alerts and 9 of 92 (10%) overrode all of them. Conclusions: The decision to override prescribing warnings shows variation between providers, and the magnitude of variation differs among the clinical domains of the warnings; more variation was observed in areas with more inappropriate overrides. © The Author 2015. Source

Discover hidden collaborations