Showing Your Work: Impact of annotating electronic prescriptions with decision support results

Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, 2209 Garland Ave., Room 428, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Journal of Biomedical Informatics (Impact Factor: 2.19). 12/2009; 43(2):321-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2009.11.008
Source: PubMed


e-Prescribing systems with decision support do not routinely communicate an adequate amount of information regarding the prescribers' decision to pharmacists. To address this communication gap in the e-prescribing process, we implemented a system called Show Your Work (SYW) that appends alerts and override comments to e-prescriptions generated by an e-prescribing system. To assess the quantitative impact of this system, we conducted a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study to assess pharmacy callback rates and types, and to uncover any unintended consequences of the annotations. Each day, SYW output across the enterprise was turned "on" or "off" randomly for all e-prescriptions. A convenience sample of three pharmacies, blinded to SYW status, submitted callback logs each day. These logs were used to calculate the rate of and reason for callbacks. At the conclusion of the study, we surveyed the 50 most frequently used pharmacies in our area to assess the impact of SYW on satisfaction and communication. A total of 202 callbacks had occurred yielding a callback rate of 45 callbacks/1000 prescriptions for SYW "on" days and 40 callbacks/1000 prescriptions for "off" days (p=0.4). We received 38 surveys (76% response rate) with 33 respondents commenting about SYW. Most respondents agreed (69%) that SYW favorably impacted callbacks--especially with pediatric prescriptions (82%). Comments suggested that SYW increased callbacks where necessary and decreased them in other situations, but did not contribute to unnecessary callbacks. These findings support the continued and potentially expanded use of SYW by e-prescribing systems to enhance communication with pharmacists.

Download full-text


Available from: Xian Ho, Sep 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded an evidence report to address seven questions on multiple aspects of the effectiveness of medication management information technology (MMIT) and its components (prescribing, order communication, dispensing, administering, and monitoring). Medline and 11 other databases without language or date limitations to mid-2010. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing integrated MMIT were selected by two independent reviewers. Reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Senior staff checked accuracy. Most of the 87 RCTs focused on clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry systems, were performed in hospitals and clinics, included primarily physicians and sometimes nurses but not other health professionals, and studied process changes related to prescribing and monitoring medication. Processes of care improved for prescribing and monitoring mostly in hospital settings, but the few studies measuring clinical outcomes showed small or no improvements. Studies were performed most frequently in the USA (n=63), Europe (n=16), and Canada (n=6). Many studies had limited description of systems, installations, institutions, and targets of the intervention. Problems with methods and analyses were also found. Few studies addressed order communication, dispensing, or administering, non-physician prescribers or pharmacists and their MMIT tools, or patients and caregivers. Other study methods are also needed to completely understand the effects of MMIT. Almost half of MMIT interventions improved the process of care, but few studies measured clinical outcomes. This large body of literature, although instructive, is not uniformly distributed across settings, people, medication phases, or outcomes.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2011 · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about how e-prescribing impacts outpatient prescribing errors. Comparing these data with problems identified with other prescription conveyance methods will help researchers identify system problems and offer solutions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) measure the incidence of prescription problems that required pharmacist intervention, (2) determine the types and relative frequencies of prescription conveyance that contain problems that require pharmacist intervention, and (3) estimate the pharmacy personnel time and related practice expenses for prescriptions requiring intervention. METHODS: This study used an observational prospective design examining data from 2 community chain grocery store pharmacies. The primary outcome was number of interventions for each prescription conveyance type. Variables of interest included (1) the type of medication(s) involved in the intervention, (2) how the pharmacist was alerted to the potential problem, (3) reason for the intervention, (4) pharmacists' actions based on the intervention, (5) time spent during the resolution of the intervention, and (6) costs based on pharmacy personnel time. Chi-square analysis with a Bonferroni correction was used to compare percentage intervention rates between prescription conveyances. E-prescribing was used as the reference group to compare across interventions. A Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used to compare the time on task values for the interventions. RESULTS: Pharmacists reviewed 1678 new prescriptions and intervened on 153 (9.1%) during 13 days of data collection. A total of 11 hours and 58 minutes were required to perform all interventions for an overall average of 4.9 (standard deviation=0.34) minutes per intervention. The most common reasons for pharmacists' intervention on e-prescriptions were excessive quantity/duration (18.2%) and violating legal requirements (18.2%). The percentages of interventions were significantly different between e-prescribing (11.7%) and both faxed (3.9%) and verbal (5.1%) orders (P<.0001 and P<.01, respectively), with faxed and verbal interventions occurring less frequently. The difference in the intervention rates between e-prescribing (11.7%) and handwritten (15.4%) prescription conveyances were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: When comparing e-prescribing with handwritten prescriptions requiring interventions, no significant differences existed. Results suggest that pharmacists must intervene on e-prescriptions as at the same rate as handwritten prescriptions.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2012 · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) is one of the most studied areas of health information technology due to advocacy for its use by influential organizations such as the Institute of Medicine (IOM). In the United States, the federal government has played a significant role in encouraging use of e-prescribing technology and in stimulating associated research nationwide. The federal government has increased e-prescribing research initiatives through agencies such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Initial initiatives focused on the development of standards for e-prescribing systems and implementation. In recent times, e-prescribing research initiatives have become more focused on identifying unintended consequences of using this technology and identifying new possibilities of use that were previously not envisioned. Continuous studies of how healthcare professionals are interfacing with this new technology, how systems have been implemented, and the impact of this technology on healthcare processes and outcomes are crucial.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2012 · Perspectives in health information management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association
Show more