Recommendations for selecting drug-drug interactions for clinical decision support.

PURPOSE: Recommendations for including drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in clinical decision support (CDS) are presented. SUMMARY: A conference series was conducted to improve CDS for DDIs. A work group consisting of 20 experts in pharmacology, drug information, and CDS from academia, government agencies, health information vendors, and healthcare organizations was convened to address (1) the process to use for developing and maintaining a standard set of DDIs, (2) the information that should be included in a knowledge base of standard DDIs, (3) whether a list of contraindicated drug pairs can or should be established, and (4) how to more intelligently filter DDI alerts. We recommend a transparent, systematic, and evidence-driven process with graded recommendations by a consensus panel of experts and oversight by a national organization. We outline key DDI information needed to help guide clinician decision-making. We recommend judicious classification of DDIs as contraindicated and more research to identify methods to safely reduce repetitive and less-relevant alerts. CONCLUSION: An expert panel with a centralized organizer or convener should be established to develop and maintain a standard set of DDIs for CDS in the United States. The process should be evidence driven, transparent, and systematic, with feedback from multiple stakeholders for continuous improvement. The scope of the expert panel's work should be carefully managed to ensure that the process is sustainable. Support for research to improve DDI alerting in the future is also needed. Adoption of these steps may lead to consistent and clinically relevant content for interruptive DDIs, thus reducing alert fatigue and improving patient safety.

Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts.

OBJECTIVE: To establish preferred strategies for presenting drug-drug interaction (DDI) clinical decision support alerts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A DDI Clinical Decision Support Conference Series included a workgroup consisting of 24 clinical, usability, and informatics experts representing academia, health information technology (IT) vendors, healthcare organizations, and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. Workgroup members met via web-based meetings 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014, and two in-person meetings to reach consensus on recommendations to improve decision support for DDIs. We addressed three key questions: (1) what, how, where, and when do we display DDI decision support? (2) should presentation of DDI decision support vary by clinicians? and (3) how should effectiveness of DDI decision support be measured? RESULTS: Our recommendations include the consistent use of terminology, visual cues, minimal text, formatting, content, and reporting standards to facilitate usability. All clinicians involved in the medication use process should be able to view DDI alerts and actions by other clinicians. Override rates are common but may not be a good measure of effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Seven core elements should be included with DDI decision support. DDI information should be presented to all clinicians. Finally, in their current form, override rates have limited capability to evaluate alert effectiveness. CONCLUSION: DDI clinical decision support alerts need major improvements. We provide recommendations for healthcare organizations and IT vendors to improve the clinician interface of DDI alerts, with the aim of reducing alert fatigue and improving patient safety.

Consensus recommendations for systematic evaluation of drug-drug interaction evidence for clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence for DDIs from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents. METHODS: A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 18 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations. RESULTS: We developed expert consensus answers to the following three key questions. (i) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence? (ii) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs? (iii) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated? CONCLUSION: Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug compendia and clinical decision support systems in which these recommendations are implemented should be able to provide higher-quality information about DDIs.