USING CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN PRACTICE AND ITS EFFECT ON DRUG INTERACTION
Main Article Content
Keywords
Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS), Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs), Alert Fatigue, Patient Safety, Medication Management, Healthcare Optimization
Abstract
Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are now essential tools in healthcare, providing clinicians with crucial guidance and information to assist in patient care. Their integration into Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems has the potential to revolutionize healthcare by enhancing safety, quality, and efficiency. A key function of CDSS is identifying and managing drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which are a major concern in today's complex medication landscape. DDIs can lead to adverse drug events (ADEs), resulting in increased hospitalization rates, longer hospital stays, and patient morbidity and mortality. CDSS can play a crucial role in detecting DDIs early, potentially reducing these risks. However, the effectiveness of CDSS-generated DDI alerts varies, and many alerts are ignored due to factors like alert fatigue and design flaws. Efforts to improve DDI alerts focus on standardizing their presentation, content, and resolution processes. It is crucial to include clear identification of drug pairs, indication of severity, explanation of clinical consequences, and guidance on risk mitigation. Consistency in terminology, symbols, and formats is essential, as is incorporating patient-specific data and context into alert logic. A team approach to DDI management, involving various healthcare professionals, is recommended for optimal patient care. Evaluating the effectiveness of DDI alerts should consider both measurable and perceived value, recognizing that clinicians' perceptions may differ based on their expertise and roles. Additionally, it is important not to rely solely on override rates as the metric for assessing alert efficacy. In conclusion, CDSS and DDI alerting systems have the potential to significantly enhance patient safety and healthcare outcomes. However, ongoing research, standardization, and user-centered design are essential to fully realize their benefits and address associated challenges.
References
2. Floor-Schreudering A, Geerts AF, Aronson JK, Bouvy ML, Ferner RE, De Smet PA. Checklist for standardized reporting of drug–drug interaction management guidelines. European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2014;70:313-8.
3. Ashworth M. Re: GPs' views on computerized drug interaction alerts. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2002;27(5):311-2.
4. Hansten PD, Horn JR, Hazlet TK. ORCA: OpeRational ClassificAtion of drug interactions. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (1996). 2001;41(2):161-5.
5. Murphy JE, Malone DC, Olson BM, Grizzle AJ, Armstrong EP, Skrepnek GH. Development of computerized alerts with management strategies for 25 serious drug–drug interactions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2009;66(1):38-44.
6. Russ AL, Zillich AJ, McManus MS, Doebbeling BN, Saleem JJ. Prescribers’ interactions with medication alerts at the point of prescribing: a multi-method, in situ investigation of the human–computer interaction. International journal of medical informatics. 2012;81(4):232-43.
7. van Roon EN, Flikweert S, le Comte M, Langendijk PN, Kwee-Zuiderwijk WJ, Smits P, et al. Clinical relevance of drug-drug interactions: a structured assessment procedure. Drug safety. 2005;28:1131-9.
8. Horsky J, Phansalkar S, Desai A, Bell D, Middleton B. Design of decision support interventions for medication prescribing. International journal of medical informatics. 2013;82(6):492-503.
9. Russ AL, Saleem JJ, McManus MS, Frankel RM, Zillich AJ, editors. The workflow of computerized medication ordering in primary care is not prescriptive. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 2010: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
10. Kuilboer MM, van der Lei J, Bohnen AM, van Bemmel JH, editors. The availability of unavailable information. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium; 1997: American Medical Informatics Association.
11. Wogalter MS, Silver NC, Leonard SD, Zaikina H. Warning symbols. Handbook of warnings. 2006;1.
12. Coleman JJ, van der Sijs H, Haefeli WE, Slight SP, McDowell SE, Seidling HM, et al. On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2013;13(1):1-8.
13. Baker DP, Gustafson S, Beaubien J, Salas E, Barach P. Medical teamwork and patient safety: the evidence-based relation. AHRQ publication. 2005;5(53):1-64.
14. Ryan RE, Santesso N, Lowe D, Hill S, Grimshaw JM, Prictor M, et al. Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014(4).
15. Mutebi A, Warholak TL, Hines LE, Plummer R, Malone DC. Assessing patients' information needs regarding drug–drug interactions. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 2013;53(1):39-45.
16. Porter ME. What is value in health care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477-81.
17. Van Der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2006;13(2):138-47.
18. McCoy AB, Waitman LR, Lewis JB, Wright JA, Choma DP, Miller RA, et al. A framework for evaluating the appropriateness of clinical decision support alerts and responses. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2012;19(3):346-52.
19. Chaiken S, Ledgerwood A. A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. Handbook of theories of social psychology. 2012;1:246-66.
20. Maheswaran D, Chaiken S. Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1991;61(1):13.