The Safety of Outpatient Health Care : Review of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure AEs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR). SETTING: 11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018. PATIENTS: 3103 patients who received outpatient care. MEASUREMENTS: Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites. RESULTS: The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially. LIMITATION: Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs. CONCLUSION: Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

Correction: Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/43960.].

Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based point-of-care information (POCI) tools can facilitate patient safety and care by helping clinicians to answer disease state and drug information questions in less time and with less effort. However, these tools may also be visually challenging to navigate or lack the comprehensiveness needed to sufficiently address a medical issue. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to collect clinicians' feedback and directly observe their use of the combined POCI tool DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson, now known as DynaMedex. EBSCO partnered with IBM Watson Health, now known as Merative, to develop the combined tool as a resource for clinicians. We aimed to identify areas for refinement based on participant feedback and examine participant perceptions to inform further development. METHODS: Participants (N=43) within varying clinical roles and specialties were recruited from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, between August 10, 2021, and December 16, 2021, to take part in usability sessions aimed at evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of, as well as satisfaction with, the DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson tool. Usability testing methods, including think aloud and observations of user behavior, were used to identify challenges regarding the combined tool. Data collection included measurements of time on task; task ease; satisfaction with the answer; posttest feedback on likes, dislikes, and perceived reliability of the tool; and interest in recommending the tool to a colleague. RESULTS: On a 7-point Likert scale, pharmacists rated ease (mean 5.98, SD 1.38) and satisfaction (mean 6.31, SD 1.34) with the combined POCI tool higher than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (ease: mean 5.57, SD 1.64, and satisfaction: mean 5.82, SD 1.60). Pharmacists spent longer (mean 2 minutes, 26 seconds, SD 1 minute, 41 seconds) on average finding an answer to their question than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (mean 1 minute, 40 seconds, SD 1 minute, 23 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the tool performed well, but this usability evaluation identified multiple opportunities for improvement that would help inexperienced users.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. RESULTS: In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

Pharmacists' role in detection and evaluation of adverse drug reactions: Developing proactive systems for pharmacosurveillance.

PURPOSE: To identify current challenges in detection of medication-related symptoms, and review technology-based opportunities to increase the patient-centeredness of postmarketing pharmacosurveillance to promote more accountable, safer, patient-friendly, and equitable medication prescribing. SUMMARY: Pharmacists have an important role to play in detection and evaluation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The pharmacist's role in medication management should extend beyond simply dispensing drugs, and this article delineates the rationale and proactive approaches for pharmacist detection and assessment of ADRs. We describe a stepwise approach for assessment, best practices, and lessons learned from a pharmacist-led randomized trial, the CEDAR (Calling for Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions) project. CONCLUSION: Health systems need to be redesigned to more fully utilize health information technologies and pharmacists in detecting and responding to ADRs.

Intelligent Telehealth in Pharmacovigilance: A Future Perspective.

Pharmacovigilance improves patient safety by detecting and preventing adverse drug events. However, challenges exist that limit adverse drug event detection, resulting in many adverse drug events being underreported or inaccurately reported. One challenge includes having access to large data sets from various sources including electronic health records and wearable medical devices. Artificial intelligence, including machine learning methods, such as natural language processing and deep learning, can detect and extract information about adverse drug events, thus automating the pharmacovigilance process and improving the surveillance of known and documented adverse drug events. In addition, with the increased demand for telehealth services, for managing both acute and chronic diseases, artificial intelligence methods can play a role in detecting and preventing adverse drug events. In this review, we discuss two use cases of how artificial intelligence methods may be useful to improve the quality of pharmacovigilance and the role of artificial intelligence in telehealth practices.

Key use cases for artificial intelligence to reduce the frequency of adverse drug events: a scoping review.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) represent one of the most prevalent types of health-care-related harm, and there is substantial room for improvement in the way that they are currently predicted and detected. We conducted a scoping review to identify key use cases in which artificial intelligence (AI) could be leveraged to reduce the frequency of ADEs. We focused on modern machine learning techniques and natural language processing. 78 articles were included in the scoping review. Studies were heterogeneous and applied various AI techniques covering a wide range of medications and ADEs. We identified several key use cases in which AI could contribute to reducing the frequency and consequences of ADEs, through prediction to prevent ADEs and early detection to mitigate the effects. Most studies (73 [94%] of 78) assessed technical algorithm performance, and few studies evaluated the use of AI in clinical settings. Most articles (58 [74%] of 78) were published within the past 5 years, highlighting an emerging area of study. Availability of new types of data, such as genetic information, and access to unstructured clinical notes might further advance the field.

Virtual optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the IMPLEMENT-HF pilot study.

AIMS: Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains incomplete. Non-cardiovascular hospitalization may present opportunities for GDMT optimization. We assessed the efficacy and durability of a virtual, multidisciplinary 'GDMT Team' on medical therapy prescription for HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were prospectively identified from 3 February to 1 March 2020 (usual care group) and 2 March to 28 August 2020 (intervention group). Patients with critical illness, de novo heart failure, and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg in the preceeding 24 hs prior to enrollment were excluded. In the intervention group, a pharmacist-physician GDMT Team provided optimization suggestions to treating teams based on an evidence-based algorithm. The primary outcome was a GDMT optimization score, the sum of positive (+1 for new initiations or up-titrations) and negative therapeutic changes (-1 for discontinuations or down-titrations) at hospital discharge. Serious in-hospital safety events were assessed. Among 278 consecutive encounters with HFrEF, 118 met eligibility criteria; 29 (25%) received usual care and 89 (75%) received the GDMT Team intervention. Among usual care encounters, there were no changes in GDMT prescription during hospitalization. In the intervention group, ß-blocker (72% to 88%; P = 0.01), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (6% to 17%; P = 0.03), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (16% to 29%; P = 0.05), and triple therapy (9% to 26%; P < 0.01) prescriptions increased during hospitalization. After adjustment for clinically relevant covariates, the GDMT Team was associated with an increase in GDMT optimization score (+0.58; 95% confidence interval +0.09 to +1.07; P = 0.02). There were no serious in-hospital adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Non-cardiovascular hospitalizations are a potentially safe and effective setting for GDMT optimization. A virtual GDMT Team was associated with improved heart failure therapeutic optimization. This implementation strategy warrants testing in a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Clinical Utility of Pharmacogenomic Data Collected by a Health-System Biobank to Predict and Prevent Adverse Drug Events.

INTRODUCTION: Medication-related harm represents a significant issue for patient safety and quality of care. One strategy to avoid preventable adverse drug events is to utilize patient-specific factors such as pharmacogenomics (PGx) to individualize therapy. OBJECTIVE: We measured the number of patients enrolled in a health-system biobank with actionable PGx results who received relevant medications and assessed the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) that might have been prevented had the PGx results been used to inform prescribing. METHODS: Patients with actionable PGx results in the following four genes with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines were identified: HLA-A*31:01, HLA-B*15:02, TPMT, and VKORC1. The patients who received interacting medications (carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, thiopurines, or warfarin) were identified, and electronic health records were reviewed to determine the incidence of potentially preventable ADEs. RESULTS: Of 36,424 patients with PGx results, 2327 (6.4%) were HLA-A*31:01 positive; 3543 (9.7%) were HLA-B*15:02 positive; 2893 (7.9%) were TPMT intermediate metabolizers; and 4249 (11.7%) were homozygous for the VKORC1 c.1639 G>A variant. Among patients positive for one of the HLA variants who received carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine (n = 92), four (4.3%) experienced a rash that warranted drug discontinuation. Among the TPMT intermediate metabolizers who received a thiopurine (n = 56), 11 (19.6%) experienced severe myelosuppression that warranted drug discontinuation. Among patients homozygous for the VKORC1 c.1639 G>A variant who received warfarin (n = 379), 85 (22.4%) experienced active bleeding and/or international normalized ratio (INR) > 5 that warranted drug discontinuation or dose reduction. CONCLUSION: Patients with actionable PGx results from a health-system biobank who received relevant medications experienced predictable ADEs. These ADEs may have been prevented if the patients' PGx results were available in the electronic health record with clinical decision support prior to prescribing.

Renal medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts and overrides in the inpatient setting following implementation of a commercial electronic health record: implications for designing more effective alerts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts associated with renal insufficiency and the potential/actual harm from overriding the alerts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Override rate frequency was recorded for all inpatients who had a renal CDS alert trigger between 05/2017 and 04/2018. Two random samples of 300 for each of 2 types of medication-related CDS alerts associated with renal insufficiency-"dose change" and "avoid medication"-were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using predetermined criteria for appropriateness of alert trigger, appropriateness of override, and patient harm. RESULTS: We identified 37 100 "dose change" and 5095 "avoid medication" alerts in the population evaluated, and 100% of each were overridden. Dose change triggers were classified as 12.5% appropriate and overrides of these alerts classified as 90.5% appropriate. Avoid medication triggers were classified as 29.6% appropriate and overrides 76.5% appropriate. We identified 5 adverse drug events, and, of these, 4 of the 5 were due to inappropriately overridden alerts. CONCLUSION: Alerts were nearly always presented inappropriately and were all overridden during the 1-year period studied. Alert fatigue resulting from receiving too many poor-quality alerts may result in failure to recognize errors that could lead to patient harm. Although medication-related CDS alerts associated with renal insufficiency had previously been found to be the most clinically beneficial alerts in a legacy system, in this system they were ineffective. These findings underscore the need for improvements in alert design, implementation, and monitoring of alert performance to make alerts more patient-specific and clinically appropriate.

High-priority drug-drug interaction clinical decision support overrides in a newly implemented commercial computerized provider order-entry system: Override appropriateness and adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine frequency and appropriateness of overrides of high-priority drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts and whether adverse drug events (ADEs) were associated with overrides in a newly implemented electronic health record. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of overridden high-priority DDI alerts occurring from April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017, from inpatient and outpatient settings at an academic health center. We studied highest-severity DDIs that were previously designated as "hard stops" and additional high-priority DDIs identified from clinical experience and literature review. All highest-severity alert overrides (n = 193) plus a stratified random sample of additional overrides (n = 371) were evaluated for override appropriateness, using predetermined criteria. Charts were reviewed to identify ADEs for overrides that resulted in medication administration. A chi-square test was used to compare ADE rate by override appropriateness. RESULTS: Of 16 011 alerts presented to providers, 15 318 (95.7%) were overridden, including 193 (87.3%) of the highest-severity DDIs and 15 125 (95.8%) of additional DDIs. Override appropriateness was 45.4% overall, 0.5% for highest-severity DDIs and 68.7% for additional DDIs. For alerts that resulted in medication administration (n = 423, 75.0%), 29 ADEs were identified (6.9%, 5.1 per 100 overrides). The rate of ADEs was higher with inappropriate vs appropriate overrides (9.4% vs 4.3%; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The override rate was nearly 90% for even the highest-severity DDI alerts, indicating that stronger suggestions should be made for these alerts, while other alerts should be evaluated for potential suppression.

Structured override reasons for drug-drug interaction alerts in electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine availability and use of structured override reasons for drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts in electronic health records. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data on DDI alerts and override reasons from 10 clinical sites across the United States using a variety of electronic health records. We used a multistage iterative card sort method to categorize the override reasons from all sites and identified best practices. RESULTS: Our methodology established 177 unique override reasons across the 10 sites. The number of coded override reasons at each site ranged from 3 to 100. Many sites offered override reasons not relevant to DDIs. Twelve categories of override reasons were identified. Three categories accounted for 78% of all overrides: "will monitor or take precautions," "not clinically significant," and "benefit outweighs risk." DISCUSSION: We found wide variability in override reasons between sites and many opportunities to improve alerts. Some override reasons were irrelevant to DDIs. Many override reasons attested to a future action (eg, decreasing a dose or ordering monitoring tests), which requires an additional step after the alert is overridden, unless the alert is made actionable. Some override reasons deferred to another party, although override reasons often are not visible to other users. Many override reasons stated that the alert was inaccurate, suggesting that specificity of alerts could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations should improve the options available to providers who choose to override DDI alerts. DDI alerting systems should be actionable and alerts should be tailored to the patient and drug pairs.

How often do prescribers include indications in drug orders? Analysis of 4 million outpatient prescriptions.

PURPOSE: To examine the extent to which outpatient clinicians currently document drug indications in prescription instructions. METHODS: Free-text sigs were extracted from all outpatient prescriptions generated by the computerized prescriber order entry system of a major academic institution during a 5-year period. Natural language processing was used to identify drug indications. The data set was analyzed to determine the rates at which prescribers included indications. It was stratified by provider specialty, drug class, and specific medications, to determine how often these indications were in prescriptions for as-needed (PRN) versus non-PRN medications. RESULTS: During the study period, 4,356,086 prescriptions were ordered. Indications were included in 322,961 orders (7.41%). From these orders, 249,262 indications (77.18%) were written for PRN orders. Although internal medicine prescribers generated the highest number of medication orders, they included indications in only 6.26% of their prescriptions, whereas orthopedic surgery providers had the highest rate of documenting indications (33.41%). Pain was the most common indication, accounting for 30.35% of all documented indications. The drug class with the highest number of sigs-containing indications was narcotic analgesics. Non-PRN chronic medication prescriptions rarely included the indication. CONCLUSION: Prescribers rarely included drug indications in electronic free-text prescription instructions, and, when they did, it was mostly for PRN uses such as pain.

Comparison of a Prototype for Indications-Based Prescribing With 2 Commercial Prescribing Systems.

Importance: The indication (reason for use) for a medication is rarely included on prescriptions despite repeated recommendations to do so. One barrier has been the way existing electronic prescribing systems have been designed. Objective: To evaluate, in comparison with the prescribing modules of 2 leading electronic health record prescribing systems, the efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction with a new computerized provider order entry prototype for the outpatient setting that allows clinicians to initiate prescribing using the indication. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used usability tests requiring internal medicine physicians, residents, and physician assistants to enter prescriptions electronically, including indication, for 8 clinical scenarios. The tool order assignments were randomized and prescribers were asked to use the prototype for 4 of the scenarios and their usual system for the other 4. Time on task, number of clicks, and order details were captured. User satisfaction was measured using posttask ratings and a validated system usability scale. The study participants practiced in 2 health systems' outpatient practices. Usability tests were conducted between April and October of 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Usability (efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction) of indications-based computerized provider order entry prototype vs the electronic prescribing interface of 2 electronic health record vendors. Results: Thirty-two participants (17 attending physicians, 13 residents, and 2 physician assistants) used the prototype to complete 256 usability test scenarios. The mean (SD) time on task was 1.78 (1.17) minutes. For the 20 participants who used vendor 1's system, it took a mean (SD) of 3.37 (1.90) minutes to complete a prescription, and for the 12 participants using vendor 2's system, it took a mean (SD) of 2.93 (1.52) minutes. Across all scenarios, when comparing number of clicks, for those participants using the prototype and vendor 1, there was a statistically significant difference from the mean (SD) number of clicks needed (18.39 [12.62] vs 46.50 [27.29]; difference, 28.11; 95% CI, 21.47-34.75; P < .001). For those using the prototype and vendor 2, there was also a statistically significant difference in number of clicks (20.10 [11.52] vs 38.25 [19.77]; difference, 18.14; 95% CI, 11.59-24.70; P < .001). A blinded review of the order details revealed medication errors (eg, drug-allergy interactions) in 38 of 128 prescribing sessions using a vendor system vs 7 of 128 with the prototype. Conclusions and Relevance: Reengineering prescribing to start with the drug indication allowed indications to be captured in an easy and useful way, which may be associated with saved time and effort, reduced medication errors, and increased clinician satisfaction.

Evaluation of Harm Associated with High Dose-Range Clinical Decision Support Overrides in the Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts have been shown to be effective at reducing adverse drug events (ADEs). However, these alerts are frequently overridden, with limited data linking these overrides to harm. Dose-range checking alerts are a type of CDS alert that could have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of adult ICUs from September 2016 to April 2017. Targeted overridden alerts were triggered when doses greater than or equal to 5% over the maximum dose were prescribed. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of the override, determined by two independent reviewers, using pre-specified criteria formulated by a multidisciplinary group. Overrides which resulted in medication administration were then evaluated for ADEs by chart review. RESULTS: The override rate of high dose-range alerts in the ICU was 93.0% (total n = 1525) during the study period. A total of 1418 overridden alerts from 755 unique patients were evaluated for appropriateness (appropriateness rate 88.8%). The most common medication associated with high dose-range alerts was insulin regular infusion (n = 262, 18.5%). The rates of ADEs for the appropriately and inappropriately overridden alerts per 100 overridden alerts were 1.3 and 5.0, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overriding high dose-range CDS alerts was found to be common and often appropriate, suggesting that more intelligent dose checking is needed. Some alerts were clearly inappropriately presented to the provider. Inappropriate overrides were associated with an increased risk of ADEs, compared to appropriately overridden alerts.

Screening for Adverse Drug Events: a Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Medication adverse events are important and common yet are often not identified by clinicians. We evaluated an automated telephone surveillance system coupled with transfer to a live pharmacist to screen potentially drug-related symptoms after newly starting medications for four common primary care conditions: hypertension, diabetes, depression, and insomnia. METHODS: Cluster randomized trial with automated calls to eligible patients at 1 and 4 months after starting target drugs from intervention primary care clinics compared to propensity-matched patients from control clinics. Primary and secondary outcomes were physician documentation of any adverse effects associated with newly prescribed target medication, and whether the medication was discontinued and, if yes, whether the reason for stopping was an adverse effect. RESULTS: Of 4876 eligible intervention clinic patients who were contacted using automated calls, 776 (15.1%) responded and participated in the automated call. Based on positive symptom responses or request to speak to a pharmacist, 320 patients were transferred to the pharmacist and discussed 1021 potentially drug-related symptoms. Of these, 188 (18.5%) were assessed as probably and 479 (47.1%) as possibly related to the medication. Compared to a propensity-matched cohort of control clinic patients, intervention patients were significantly more likely to have adverse effects documented in the medical record by a physician (277 vs. 164 adverse effects, p < 0.0001, and 177 vs. 122 patients discontinued with documented adverse effects, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Systematic automated telephone outreach monitoring coupled with real-time phone referral to a pharmacist identified a substantial number of previously unidentified potentially drug-related symptoms, many of which were validated as probably or possibly related to the drug by the pharmacist or their physicians. Multiple challenges were encountered using the interactive voice response (IVR) automated calling system, suggesting that other approaches may need to be considered and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02087293.

Using drug knowledgebase information to distinguish between look-alike-sound-alike drugs.

Objective: To extract drug indications from a commercial drug knowledgebase and determine to what extent drug indications can discriminate between look-alike-sound-alike (LASA) drugs. Methods: We extracted drug indications disease concepts from the MedKnowledge Indications module from First Databank Inc. (South San Francisco, CA) and associated them with drugs on the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) list of commonly confused drug names. We used high-level concepts (rather than granular concepts) to represent the general indications for each drug. Two pharmacists reviewed each drug's association with its high-level indications concepts for accuracy and clinical relevance. We compared the high-level indications for each commonly confused drug pair and categorized each pair as having a complete overlap, partial overlap or no overlap in high-level indications. Results: Of 278 LASA drug pairs, 165 (59%) had no overlap and 58 (21%) had partial overlap in high-level indications. Fifty-five pairs (20%) had complete overlap in high-level indications; nearly half of these were comprised of drugs with the same active ingredient and route of administration (e.g., Adderall, Adderall XR). Conclusions: Drug indications data from a drug knowledgebase can discriminate between many LASA drugs.

Incorporating medication indications into the prescribing process.

PURPOSE: The incorporation of medication indications into the prescribing process to improve patient safety is discussed. SUMMARY: Currently, most prescriptions lack a key piece of information needed for safe medication use: the patient-specific drug indication. Integrating indications could pave the way for safer prescribing in multiple ways, including avoiding look-alike/sound-alike errors, facilitating selection of drugs of choice, aiding in communication among the healthcare team, bolstering patient understanding and adherence, and organizing medication lists to facilitate medication reconciliation. Although strongly supported by pharmacists, multiple prior attempts to encourage prescribers to include the indication on prescriptions have not been successful. We convened 6 expert panels to consult high-level stakeholders on system design considerations and requirements necessary for building and implementing an indications-based computerized prescriber order-entry (CPOE) system. We summarize our findings from the 6 expert stakeholder panels, including rationale, literature findings, potential benefits, and challenges of incorporating indications into the prescribing process. Based on this stakeholder input, design requirements for a new CPOE interface and workflow have been identified. CONCLUSION: The emergence of universal electronic prescribing and content knowledge vendors has laid the groundwork for incorporating indications into the CPOE prescribing process. As medication prescribing moves in the direction of inclusion of the indication, it is imperative to design CPOE systems to efficiently and effectively incorporate indications into prescriber workflows and optimize ways this can best be accomplished.

Prospective evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support over-rides in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) displayed in electronic health records has been found to reduce the incidence of medication errors and adverse drug events (ADE). Recent data suggested that medication-related CDS alerts were frequently over-ridden, often inappropriately. Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at an increased risk of ADEs; however, limited data exist on the benefits of CDS in the ICU. This study aims to evaluate potential harm associated with medication-related CDS over-rides in the ICU. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of adults admitted to any of six ICUs between July 2016 and April 2017 at our institution. Patients with provider-overridden CDS for dose (orders for scheduled frequency and not pro re nata), drug allergy, drug-drug interaction, geriatric and renal alerts (contraindicated medications for renal function or renal dosing) were included. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of over-rides, which were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Secondary outcomes included incidence of ADEs following alert over-ride and risk of ADEs based on over-ride appropriateness. RESULTS: A total of 2448 over-ridden alerts from 712 unique patient encounters met inclusion criteria. The overall appropriateness rate for over-rides was 81.6% and varied by alert type. More ADEs (potential and definite) were identified following inappropriate over-rides compared with appropriate over-rides (16.5 vs 2.74 per 100 over-ridden alerts, Fisher's exact test P<0.001). An adjusted logistic regression model showed that inappropriate over-rides were associated with an increased risk of ADEs (OR 6.14, 95% CI 4.63 to 7.71, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately four of five identified CDS over-rides were appropriately over-ridden, with the rate varying by alert type. However, inappropriate over-rides were six times as likely to be associated with potential and definite ADEs, compared with appropriate over-rides. Further efforts should be targeted at improving the positive predictive value of CDS such as by suppressing alerts that are appropriately over-ridden.

Outpatient CPOE orders discontinued due to 'erroneous entry': prospective survey of prescribers' explanations for errors.

BACKGROUND: Computerised prescriber order entry (CPOE) systems users often discontinue medications because the initial order was erroneous. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate error types by querying prescribers about their reasons for discontinuing outpatient medication orders that they had self-identified as erroneous. METHODS: During a nearly 3 year retrospective data collection period, we identified 57 972 drugs discontinued with the reason 'Error (erroneous entry)." Because chart reviews revealed limited information about these errors, we prospectively studied consecutive, discontinued erroneous orders by querying prescribers in near-real-time to learn more about the erroneous orders. RESULTS: From January 2014 to April 2014, we prospectively emailed prescribers about outpatient drug orders that they had discontinued due to erroneous initial order entry. Of 2 50 806 medication orders in these 4 months, 1133 (0.45%) of these were discontinued due to error. From these 1133, we emailed 542 unique prescribers to ask about their reason(s) for discontinuing these mediation orders in error. We received 312 responses (58% response rate). We categorised these responses using a previously published taxonomy. The top reasons for these discontinued erroneous orders included: medication ordered for wrong patient (27.8%, n=60); wrong drug ordered (18.5%, n=40); and duplicate order placed (14.4%, n=31). Other common discontinued erroneous orders related to drug dosage and formulation (eg, extended release versus not). Oxycodone (3%) was the most frequent drug discontinued error. CONCLUSION: Drugs are not infrequently discontinued 'in error.' Wrong patient and wrong drug errors constitute the leading types of erroneous prescriptions recognised and discontinued by prescribers. Data regarding erroneous medication entries represent an important source of intelligence about how CPOE systems are functioning and malfunctioning, providing important insights regarding areas for designing CPOE more safely in the future.