Prescribers and pharmaceutical representatives: why are we still meeting?

CONTEXT: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs). OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings. RESULTS: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success.

Computerized clinical decision support during medication ordering for long-term care residents with renal insufficiency.

UNLABELLED: OBJECTIVE To determine whether a computerized clinical decision support system providing patient-specific recommendations in real-time improves the quality of prescribing for long-term care residents with renal insufficiency. DESIGN Randomized trial within the long-stay units of a large long-term care facility. Randomization was within blocks by unit type. Alerts related to medication prescribing for residents with renal insufficiency were displayed to prescribers in the intervention units and hidden but tracked in control units. Measurement The proportions of final drug orders that were appropriate were compared between intervention and control units within alert categories: (1) recommended medication doses; (2) recommended administration frequencies; (3) recommendations to avoid the drug; (4) warnings of missing information. RESULTS The rates of alerts were nearly equal in the intervention and control units: 2.5 per 1,000 resident days in the intervention units and 2.4 in the control units. The proportions of dose alerts for which the final drug orders were appropriate were similar between the intervention and control units (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83, 1.1) for the remaining alert categories significantly higher proportions of final drug orders were appropriate in the intervention units: relative risk 2.4 for maximum frequency (1.4, 4.4); 2.6 for drugs that should be avoided (1.4, 5.0); and 1.8 for alerts to acquire missing information (1.1, 3.4). Overall, final drug orders were appropriate significantly more often in the intervention units-relative risk 1.2 (1.0, 1.4). CONCLUSIONS Clinical decision support for physicians prescribing medications for long-term care residents with renal insufficiency can improve the quality of prescribing decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00599209.

Effect of computerized provider order entry with clinical decision support on adverse drug events in the long-term care setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of computerized provider order entry with clinical decision support for preventing adverse drug events in long-term care. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two large long-term care facilities. PATIENTS: One thousand one hundred eighteen long-term care residents of 29 resident care units. INTERVENTION: The 29 resident care units, each with computerized provider order entry, were randomized to having a clinical decision support system (intervention units) or not (control units). MEASUREMENTS: The number of adverse drug events, severity of events, and whether the events were preventable. RESULTS: Within intervention units, 411 adverse drug events occurred over 3,803 resident-months of observation time; 152 (37.0%) were deemed preventable. Within control units, there were 340 adverse drug events over 3,257 resident-months of observation time; 126 (37.1%) were characterized as preventable. There were 10.8 adverse drug events per 100 resident-months and 4.0 preventable events per 100 resident-months on intervention units. There were 10.4 adverse drug events per 100 resident-months and 3.9 preventable events per 100 resident-months on control units. Comparing intervention and control units, the adjusted rate ratios were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92-1.23) for all adverse drug events and 1.02 (95% CI=0.81-1.30) for preventable adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Computerized provider order entry with decision support did not reduce the adverse drug event rate or preventable adverse drug event rate in the long-term care setting. Alert burden, limited scope of the alerts, and a need to more fully integrate clinical and laboratory information may have affected efficacy.