On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop

Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) for electronic prescribing systems (computerized physician order entry) should help prescribers in the safe and rational use of medicines. However, the best ways to alert users to unsafe or irrational prescribing are uncertain. Specifically, CDS systems may generate too many alerts, producing unwelcome distractions for prescribers, or too few alerts running the risk of overlooking possible harms. Obtaining the right balance of alerting to adequately improve patient safety should be a priority. Methods: A workshop funded through the European Regional Development Fund was convened by the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust to assess current knowledge on alerts in CDS and to reach a consensus on a future research agenda on this topic. Leading European researchers in CDS and alerts in electronic prescribing systems were invited to the workshop. Results: We identified important knowledge gaps and suggest research priorities including (1) the need to determine the optimal sensitivity and specificity of alerts; (2) whether adaptation to the environment or characteristics of the user may improve alerts; and (3) whether modifying the timing and number of alerts will lead to improvements. We have also discussed the challenges and benefits of using naturalistic or experimental studies in the evaluation of alerts and suggested appropriate outcome measures. Conclusions: We have identified critical problems in CDS, which should help to guide priorities in research to evaluate alerts. It is hoped that this will spark the next generation of novel research from which practical steps can be taken to implement changes to CDS systems that will ultimately reduce alert fatigue and improve the design of future systems

Improving eye-drop administration skills of patients - A multicenter parallel-group cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundEye-drop administration errors occur in the majority of patients and increase the risk for treatment failure or systemic adverse events. While lacking knowledge is the principal error cause, most patients overestimate their skills and are unaware of often substantial knowledge gaps. Therefore, the impact of including motivational patient education on long-term eye-drop administration skills of patients was investigated.MethodsThis is a cluster-randomized controlled trial in German community pharmacies. Patient education in both groups comprised observation of the patient during eye-drop administration to identify individual errors, pharmaceutical counseling, and teach-back evaluation of the training. In the intervention group, motivational communication techniques were included to increase error awareness and readiness for patient education. In addition, intervention patients were trained on repeated errors until administration was performed correctly. In contrast, patients in the control group only received feedback on erroneous administration steps without another assessment and reinforced training.ResultsIn total, 152 adult patients were eligible to the study and 91 patients (intervention group N = 46) agreed to participate in a 1-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. Patient education significantly increased the proportion of patients correctly administering eye-drops from 6% (7 out of 56 intervention patients, 1 out of 82 control patients) at baseline to 35% (12 out of 30 intervention patients, 12 out of 39 control patients, p ≤ 0.001) at the 1-month follow-up, and 64% (11 out of 15 intervention patients, 17 out of 29 control patients, p ≤ 0.001) at the 6-month follow-up irrespective of group allocation. In some patients previously resolved errors recurred during follow-up visits. This emphasizes the need for periodical reevaluation of patient administration skills and the provision of prevention strategies besides education.ConclusionPatient education that included demonstration of administration skills and verbal and written counseling on observed errors improved eye-drop administration skills irrespective of the communication technique applied. Whereof, high drop-out rates limited the power to detect a difference between groups. In particular, periodic demonstration of administration skills seemed important for sustainable improvement of administration skills. However, further error prevention strategies such as additional education materials or support by a caregiver may be necessary in some patients

Shortcomings of Administrative Data to Derive Preventive Strategies for Inhospital Drug-Induced Acute Kidney Failure—Insights from Patient Record Analysis

Structured analyses of hospital administrative data may detect potentially preventable adverse drug events (ADE) and therefore are considered promising sources to prevent future harm and estimate cost savings. Whether results of these analyses indeed correspond to ADE that may be preventable in clinical routines needs to be verified. We exemplarily screened all adult inpatients admitted to a German University Hospital (n = 54,032) for International Classification of Diseases-10th revision (ICD-10) diagnoses coding for drug-induced kidney injury (AKI). In a retrospective chart review, we checked the coded adverse events (AE) for inhospital occurrence, causality to drug exposure, and preventability in all identified cases and calculated positive predictive values (ppv). We identified 69 inpatient cases of whom 41 cases (59.4%) experienced the AE in the hospital (ppv-range 0.43–0.80). Causality assessment revealed a rather likely causal relationship between AE and drug exposure in 11 cases (15.9, 11/69, ppv-range 0.17–0.22) whereby preventability measures could be postulated for seven cases (10.1%, 7/69). Focusing on drug-induced AKI, this study exemplarily underlines that ICD-10-code-based ADE prevention efforts are quite limited due to the small identification rate and its high proportion of primarily outpatient events. Furthermore, causality assessment revealed that cases are often too complex to benefit from generic prevention strategies. Thus, ICD-10-code-based calculations might overestimate patient harm and economic losses