Variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction alerts across institutions and electronic health records.

Objective: The United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology sponsored the development of a "high-priority" list of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) to be used for clinical decision support. We assessed current adoption of this list and current alerting practice for these DDIs with regard to alert implementation (presence or absence of an alert) and display (alert appearance as interruptive or passive). Materials and methods: We conducted evaluations of electronic health records (EHRs) at a convenience sample of health care organizations across the United States using a standardized testing protocol with simulated orders. Results: Evaluations of 19 systems were conducted at 13 sites using 14 different EHRs. Across systems, 69% of the high-priority DDI pairs produced alerts. Implementation and display of the DDI alerts tested varied between systems, even when the same EHR vendor was used. Across the drug pairs evaluated, implementation and display of DDI alerts differed, ranging from 27% (4/15) to 93% (14/15) implementation. Discussion: Currently, there is no standard of care covering which DDI alerts to implement or how to display them to providers. Opportunities to improve DDI alerting include using differential displays based on DDI severity, establishing improved lists of clinically significant DDIs, and thoroughly reviewing organizational implementation decisions regarding DDIs. Conclusion: DDI alerting is clinically important but not standardized. There is significant room for improvement and standardization around evidence-based DDIs.

Development and field testing of a self-assessment guide for computer-based provider order entry.

Despite the benefits of computerized provider order entry (CPOE), numerous reports of unexpected CPOE-related safety concerns have surfaced. As part of a larger project to improve the safety of electronic health records (EHRs), we developed and field tested a CPOE "safety self-assessment" guide through literature searches, expert opinion, and site visits. We then conducted a field test of this guide with nine hospital chief medical informatics officers (CMIOs), who were identified through the Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems. The CPOE safety self-assessment guide was sent electronically to the CMIOs. Once the assessments were returned, we conducted structured telephone interviews for further comments about the guide's format and content. The CMIOs in our study found the CPOE safety guide useful and relatively easy to complete, taking no more than 30 minutes. Analysis of responses to the guide suggest that most recommended practices were implemented inconsistently across facilities. Despite consensus for certain CPOE best practices in the medical literature and among experts, there appeared to be considerable variation among CMIOs' opinions of best practices. Interview data suggested this inconsistency was mostly due to system limitations and/or differing opinions about the necessity of certain EHR-related safety measures. Despite the absence of consensus on best practices, a self-assessment safety guide provides a practical starting point for organizations to assess and improve safety and the effectiveness of their CPOE system.