Impact of health information technology interventions to improve medication laboratory monitoring for ambulatory patients: a systematic review

Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, USA.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Impact Factor: 3.5). 11/2010; 17(6):631-6. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2009.000794
Source: PubMed


Medication errors are a major source of morbidity and mortality. Inadequate laboratory monitoring of high-risk medications after initial prescription is a medical error that contributes to preventable adverse drug events. Health information technology (HIT)-based clinical decision support may improve patient safety by improving the laboratory monitoring of high-risk medications, but the effectiveness of such interventions is unclear. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluate the independent effect of HIT interventions on improving laboratory monitoring for high-risk medications in the ambulatory setting using a Medline search from January 1, 1980 through January 1, 2009 and a manual review of relevant bibliographies. All anticoagulation monitoring studies were excluded. Eight articles met the inclusion criteria, including six randomized controlled trials and two pre-post intervention studies. Six of the studies were conducted in two large, integrated healthcare delivery systems in the USA. Overall, five of the eight studies reported statistically significant, but small, improvements in laboratory monitoring; only half of the randomized controlled trials reported statistically significant improvements. Studies that found no improvement were more likely to have used analytic strategies that addressed clustering and confounding. Whether HIT improves laboratory monitoring of certain high-risk medications for ambulatory patients remains unclear, and further research is needed to clarify this important question.

Download full-text


Available from: Jennifer Tjia, Apr 30, 2015
16 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many drugs, when licensed, list a requirement for monitoring during treatment. Frequently, the information is vague and the adherence of the prescriber and patient to the monitoring regimen is variable and often poor. There is a need for rational monitoring schemes that clinicians can adhere to and that protect patients.
    Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin 03/2010; DOI:10.1097/FAD.0b013e3283396c83
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biochemical monitoring of patients treated with antihypertensive therapy is recommended in order to identify potential adverse reactions to treatment. We aimed to review the literature investigating the nature of biochemical monitoring in adults treated in primary care with antihypertensive drugs. Specifically, we wished to establish (i) the proportion of patients with biochemical baseline testing prior to the initiation of antihypertensive therapy; (ii) the proportion of patients with biochemical monitoring after initiation of antihypertensive therapy; (iii) the patient characteristics associated with biochemical monitoring; (iv) the frequency of biochemical monitoring after the initiation of antihypertensive therapy; and (v) the relationship, if any, between biochemical monitoring and adverse patient outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar from 1948 to 31 December 2010 using a combination of text words and search terms. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials, and audits of current clinical practice were included. Clinical trials, case reports and case series were excluded. Studies were included if they provided data on the proportion of patients treated with antihypertensive therapy in primary care who had any biochemical monitoring before or after the initiation of therapy. In total, 15 studies were included in our review, which used a wide variety of definitions of monitoring prior to and after the initiation of antihypertensive therapy. From 17% to 81% of patients treated with antihypertensive drugs had a baseline biochemical test and from 20% to 79% had any follow-up monitoring. In only 7 of the 12 studies that examined follow-up monitoring did more than half of the patients have any monitoring. Overall, this systematic review provides evidence that monitoring as recommended by published guidelines is not commonly undertaken. Only two studies were identified that examined patients with both baseline testing and follow-up monitoring. Omission of one or the other limits the ability to analyse the effect of treatment on electrolyte concentrations or renal function. There is limited research on the patient factors associated with monitoring and further work is required to determine the impact of monitoring on adverse patient outcomes. Important barriers to effective monitoring exist and this review emphasizes that these have not yet been overcome.
    Drug Safety 11/2011; 34(11):1049-59. DOI:10.2165/11593980-000000000-00000 · 2.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: As electronic health records (EHRs) become widely adopted, alerts and reminders can improve medication safety, but excessive alerts may irritate or overwhelm clinicians, thereby reducing their effectiveness. We developed a novel "stealth" alert in an EHR to improve anticoagulation monitoring for patients prescribed a medication that could interact with warfarin. Instead of alerting the prescribing provider, the system notified a multidisciplinary anticoagulation management service, so that the prescribing clinicians never saw the alerts. We aimed to determine whether these "stealth" alerts increased the frequency of anticoagulation monitoring following the co-prescription of warfarin and a potentially interacting medication. Methods: We conducted a pre-post intervention study, analyzed using an interrupted time-series, within a large, multispecialty group practice that uses a common EHR. The study included a 12-month period preceding the intervention, a 2-month period during intervention implementation, and a 6-month post-intervention period. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients completing anticoagulation monitoring within 5 days of a new co-prescribing event. Results: Prior to implementation of the stealth alert, 34 % of patients completed anticoagulation monitoring within 5 days after the prescription of a medication with a potential warfarin interaction. After implementation of the alert, 39 % completed testing within 5 days (odds ratio 1.24, 95 % confidence interval 1.12-1.37). Conclusions: Stealth alerts increased the proportion of patients who underwent anticoagulation monitoring following the prescription of a medication that could potentially interact with warfarin. This team-based approach to clinical-decision support directs alerts away from prescribing clinicians and toward individuals who can directly implement them.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 07/2012; 27(12). DOI:10.1007/s11606-012-2137-y · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more