The clinical pharmacist's role in enhancing the relevance of a clinical decision support system.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can improve the quality of patient care by helping physicians to review their prescriptions and thus to optimize drug treatments. Nevertheless, the "alert fatigue" brought on by a large number of irrelevant alerts can decrease a CDSS's effectiveness and thus clinical value. Involving a clinical pharmacist in the development and management of a CDSS can reduce the number of irrelevant alerts presented to physicians. Clinical pharmacists screen alerts and suggest PIs for physicians, corresponding to any proposed therapeutic change about health products, only for relevant alerts could improve the relevance and the acceptance of the information given to physicians about the risks faced by their patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of involving clinical pharmacists in the development and maintenance of decision support rules for generating alerts and pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) and to describe the level of acceptance of these PIs by the physicians. METHOD: In a retrospective, single-centre study, we evaluated the number of PIs accepted from alerts generated by the CDSS when a clinical pharmacist had developed and managed this tool. During the first 7 months of development of the CDSS, a clinical pharmacist analyzed alerts triggered by the CDSS according to its technical validity and pharmaceutical relevance. Lastly, for alerts that led to a PI, the level of acceptance by physicians was documented. RESULTS: During the study, 1430 alerts were analysed: 186 (13%) were considered to be technically invalid - mainly due to the characteristics of the interface. Of the 1244 (87.0%) technically valid alerts, 353 (24.6%) were pharmaceutically relevant and led to a PI. The three main causes of pharmaceutical irrelevance were a lack of specificity in the CDSS (70.8%), lack of relevance with regard to the ward's habits (15.6%), and the pharmacist's decision to recommend monitoring for the patient rather than sending a PI immediately (10.8%). 64.6% of the submitted PIs were accepted by the physicians. CONCLUSION: The standardized analysis of alerts by a clinical pharmacist appears to be a good way of improving the development of CDSS by limiting the generation of irrelevant alerts and the latter's transmission to physicians. The involvement of a clinical pharmacist in the development and implementation of a CDSS appears to be novel and may help to optimize drug treatment.

Methods for Addressing Technology-induced Errors: The Current State.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper are to review and discuss the methods that are being used internationally to report on, mitigate, and eliminate technology-induced errors. METHODS: The IMIA Working Group for Health Informatics for Patient Safety worked together to review and synthesize some of the main methods and approaches associated with technology- induced error reporting, reduction, and mitigation. The work involved a review of the evidence-based literature as well as guideline publications specific to health informatics. RESULTS: The paper presents a rich overview of current approaches, issues, and methods associated with: (1) safe HIT design, (2) safe HIT implementation, (3) reporting on technology-induced errors, (4) technology-induced error analysis, and (5) health information technology (HIT) risk management. The work is based on research from around the world. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, researchers have been developing methods that can be used to identify, report on, mitigate, and eliminate technology-induced errors. Although there remain issues and challenges associated with the methodologies, they have been shown to improve the quality and safety of HIT. Since the first publications documenting technology-induced errors in healthcare in 2005, we have seen in a short 10 years researchers develop ways of identifying and addressing these types of errors. We have also seen organizations begin to use these approaches. Knowledge has been translated into practice in a short ten years whereas the norm for other research areas is of 20 years.

Usability Flaws in Medication Alerting Systems: Impact on Usage and Work System.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research has shown that medication alerting systems face usability issues. There has been no previous attempt to systematically explore the consequences of usability flaws in such systems on users (i.e. usage problems) and work systems (i.e. negative outcomes). This paper aims at exploring and synthesizing the consequences of usability flaws in terms of usage problems and negative outcomes on the work system. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 26 papers included in a prior systematic review of the usability flaws in medication alerting was performed. Usage problems and negative outcomes were extracted and sorted. Links between usability flaws, usage problems, and negative outcomes were also analyzed. RESULTS: Poor usability generates a large variety of consequences. It impacts the user from a cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and attitudinal perspective. Ultimately, usability flaws have negative consequences on the workflow, the effectiveness of the technology, the medication management process, and, more importantly, patient safety. Only few complete pathways leading from usability flaws to negative outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: Usability flaws in medication alerting systems impede users, and ultimately their work system, and negatively impact patient safety. Therefore, the usability dimension may act as a hidden explanatory variable that could explain, at least partly, the (absence of) intended outcomes of new technology.