National Rules for Drug–Drug Interactions: Are They Appropriate for Tertiary Hospitals?

The application of appropriate rules for drug–drug interactions (DDIs) could substantially reduce the number of adverse drug events. However, current implementations of such rules in tertiary hospitals are problematic as physicians are receiving too many alerts, causing high override rates and alert fatigue. We investigated the potential impact of Korean national DDI rules in a drug utilization review program in terms of their severity coverage and the clinical efficiency of how physicians respond to them. Using lists of high-priority DDIs developed with the support of the U.S. government, we evaluated 706 contraindicated DDI pairs released in May 2015. We evaluated clinical log data from one tertiary hospital and prescription data from two other tertiary hospitals. The measured parameters were national DDI rule coverage for high-priority DDIs, alert override rate, and number of prescription pairs. The coverage rates of national DDI rules were 80% and 3.0% at the class and drug levels, respectively. The analysis of the system log data showed an overall override rate of 79.6%. Only 0.3% of all of the alerts (n = 66) were high-priority DDI rules. These showed a lower override rate of 51.5%, which was much lower than for the overall DDI rules. We also found 342 and 80 unmatched high-priority DDI pairs which were absent in national rules in inpatient orders from the other two hospitals. The national DDI rules are not complete in terms of their coverage of severe DDIs. They also lack clinical efficiency in tertiary settings, suggesting improved systematic approaches are needed.

Evaluation of Mobile Health Applications Developed by a Tertiary Hospital as a Tool for Quality Improvement Breakthrough / 대한의료정보학회지

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the mobile health applications (apps) developed by a single tertiary hospital in Korea with a particular focus on quality and patient safety. METHODS: Twenty-three mobile health apps developed by Asan Medical Center were selected for analysis after exclusion of the apps without any relationship with healthcare or clinical workflow, the apps for individual usage, and the mobile Web apps. Two clinical informaticians independently evaluated the apps with respect to the six aims for quality improvement suggested by the United States Institute of Medicine. All discrepancies were resolved after discussion by the two reviewers. The six aims observed in the apps were reviewed and compared by target users. RESULTS: Eleven apps targeted patients, the other 12 were designed for healthcare providers. Among the apps for patients, one app also had functions for healthcare providers. 'My cancer diary' and 'My chart in my hand' apps matched all the six aims. Of the six aims, Timeliness was the most frequently observed (20 apps), and Equity was the least observed (6 apps). Timeliness (10/11 vs. 10/12) and Patient safety (10/11 vs. 9/12) were frequently observed in both groups. In the apps for patients, Patient-centeredness (10/11 vs. 2/12) and Equity (6/11 vs. 0/12) were more frequent but Efficiency (5/11 vs. 10/12) was less frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the six aims were observed in the apps, but the extent of coverage varied. Further studies, evaluating the extent to which they improve quality are needed.

History and Trends of "Personal Health Record" Research in PubMed / 대한의료정보학회지

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to review history and trends of personal health record research in PubMed and to provide accurate understanding and categorical analysis of expert opinions. METHODS: For the search strategy, PubMed was queried for 'personal health record, personal record, and PHR' in the title and abstract fields. Those containing different definitions of the word were removed by one-by-one analysis from the results, 695 articles. In the end, total of 229 articles were analyzed in this research. RESULTS: The results show that the changes in terms over the years and the shift to patient centeredness and mixed usage. And we identified history and trend of PHR research in some category that the number of publications by year, topic, methodologies and target diseases. Also from analysis of MeSH terms, we can show the focal interest in regards the PHR boundaries and related subjects. CONCLUSIONS: For PHRs to be efficiently used by general public, initial understanding of the history and trends of PHR research may be helpful. Simultaneously, accurate understanding and categorical analysis of expert opinions that can lead to the development and growth of PHRs will be valuable to their adoption and expansion.