Pieter Cornu

Effect of Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Admission on Medication Discrepancies During Hospitalization and at Discharge for Geriatric Patients

Background: Medication discrepancies have the potential to cause harm. Medication reconciliation by clinical pharmacists aims to prevent discrepancies and other drug-related problems. Objective: To determine how often discrepancies in the physician-acquired medication history result in discrepancies during hospitalization and at discharge. Secondary objectives were to determine the influence of clinical pharmacists’ interventions on discrepancies and to investigate possible patient-related determinants for experiencing discrepancies. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study of patients who were admitted to the acute geriatric department of a Belgian university hospital and followed up by clinical pharmacists between September 2009 and April 2010. Patients were limited to those 65 years or older who were taking 1 or more prescription drug. Medication reconciliation at admission, during hospitalization, and at discharge was conducted by an independent pharmacist who gathered information via chart reviews. Results: The reconciliation process at admission identified 681 discrepancies in 199 patients. Approximately 81.9% (163) of patients had at least 1 discrepancy in the physician-acquired medication history. The clinical pharmacists performed 386 interventions, which were accepted in 279 cases (72.3%). A quarter of the medication history discrepancies (165; 24.2%) resulted in discrepancies during hospitalization, mostly because the intervention was not accepted. At discharge, 278 medication history discrepancies (40.8%) resulted in discrepancies in the discharge letter, accounting for 50.2% of all 554 discrepancies identified in the discharge letters. The likelihood for experiencing discrepancies at admission increased by 47% for every additional drug listed in the medication history. Conclusions: Discrepancies in the physician-acquired medication history at admission do not always correlate with discrepancies during hospitalization because of clinical pharmacists’ interventions; however, discrepancies at admission may be associated with at least half of the discrepancies at discharge. Clinical pharmacist–conducted medication reconciliation can reduce these discrepancies, provided the erroneous information in the physician-acquired medication history is corrected and each intentional change in the medication plan is well documented during hospitalization and at discharge.

Discrepancies in Medication Information for the Primary Care Physician and the Geriatric Patient at Discharge

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies in discharge medication lists can lead to medication errors and adverse drug events following discharge. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and type of discrepancies between the discharge letter for the primary care physician and the patient discharge medication list as well as identify possible patient-related determinants for experiencing discrepancies. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center, cohort study of patients discharged from the acute geriatric department of a Belgian university hospital between September 2009 and April 2010 was performed. Medications listed in the discharge letter for the primary care physician were compared with those in the patient discharge medication list. Based on the clinical pharmacist–acquired medication list at hospital admission and the medications administered during hospitalization, we determined for every discrepancy whether the medication listed in the discharge letter or the patient discharge medication list was correct. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine discharged patients (mean [SD] age 83.9 [5.7] years, 64.0% female) were included in the study. Almost half of these patients (90; 47.6%) had 1 or more discrepancies in medication information at discharge. The discharge letters were often more complete and accurate than the patient discharge medication lists. The most common discrepancies were omission of a brand name in the patient discharge medication list and omission of a drug in the discharge letter. Increasing numbers of drugs in the discharge medication list (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32; p = 0.001) and discharge letter (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32; p = 0.001) were associated with a higher risk for discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between the patient discharge medication list and the medication information in the discharge letter for the primary care physician occur frequently. This may be an important source of medication errors, as confusion and uncertainty about the correct discharge medications can originate from these discrepancies. Increasing numbers of drugs involve a higher risk for discrepancies. Medication reconciliation between both lists is warranted to avoid medication errors.

Pilot evaluation of an optimized context-specific drug-drug interaction alerting system: A controlled pre-post study

OBJECTIVES Clinical decision support (CDS) systems are frequently used to reduce unwanted drug-drug interactions (DDIs) but often result in alert fatigue. The main objective of this study was to investigate whether a newly developed context-specific DDI alerting system would improve alert acceptance. METHODS A controlled pre-post intervention study was conducted in 4 departments in a university hospital. After a 7-month pre-intervention period, the new system was activated in the intervention departments, while the old system remained activated in the control departments. Post-intervention data was collected for a 7-month period. RESULTS A significant increase of the overall acceptance rate was observed between the pre- and post-intervention period (2.2% versus 52.4%; p<0.001) for the intervention departments and between the intervention and control departments (2.5% versus 52.4%; p<0.001) in the post-intervention period. There were no significant differences in acceptance rates between the pre- and post-intervention period in the control departments and also not between the control and intervention departments in the pre-intervention period. CONCLUSIONS The improvement was probably related to several optimization strategies including the customization of the severity classification, the creation of individual screening intervals, the inclusion of context factors for risk assessment, the new alert design and the creation of a follow-up system. The marked increase in alert acceptance looks promising and should be further evaluated after hospital wide implementation. System aspects that require further optimization were identified and will be developed. Further research is warranted to develop context-aware algorithms for complex class-class interactions.

Physician's expectations regarding prescribing clinical decision support systems in a Belgian hospital.

Abstract Objectives: Developing and implementing clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) is time-consuming and costly. Therefore, prioritization of the most relevant systems is warranted. The physician’s perceived usefulness has been identified as a decisive reason for using CDSSs. The objective of this study was to investigate the physician’s perceived usefulness of different types of CDSSs and to identify the user needs and expectations regarding future CDSSs. Methods: Cross-sectional single-centre survey among physicians with a clinical assignment in a university hospital. Physicians were questioned about their current experiences with drug prescribing and the perceived usefulness and desired features of future CDSSs. Results: One hundred and sixty-four physicians completed the survey (52·6%). The majority acknowledged that it is very difficult to take all relevant information into account when prescribing drugs. Drug–drug interaction checking, drug-allergy checking, and dosing guidance were considered as most useful. Automated clinical guidelines and adverse drug event monitoring were considered as least useful. The user-friendliness of the systems, clinical relevance of the alerts, and prevention of alert fatigue were perceived as important aspects for a successful implementation. Conclusions: From the physicians’ perspective drug–drug interaction checking, drug-allergy checking, and dosing guidance should receive the highest priority for development and implementation. Because the perceived usefulness has been identified as a decisive reason for using CDSSs, it seems feasible to take into account this prioritization when developing and implementing CDSSs. In order to overcome the physicians’ perceived disadvantages, attention should go to the development of user-friendly systems that deliver clinical relevant alerts.

Clinical Decision Support Systems for Drug Allergy Checking: Systematic Review

Background Worldwide, the burden of allergies—in particular, drug allergies—is growing. In the process of prescribing, dispensing, or administering a drug, a medication error may occur and can have adverse consequences; for example, a drug may be given to a patient with a documented allergy to that particular drug. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems with built-in clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to prevent such medication errors and adverse events. Objective The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview regarding all aspects of CDSS for drug allergy, including documenting, coding, rule bases, alerts and alert fatigue, and outcome evaluation. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed as much as possible and searches were conducted in 5 databases using CPOE, CDSS, alerts, and allergic or allergy as keywords. Bias could not be evaluated according to PRISMA guidelines due to the heterogeneity of study types included in the review. Results Of the 3160 articles considered, 60 met the inclusion criteria. A further 9 articles were added based on expert opinion, resulting in a total of 69 articles. An interrater agreement of 90.9% with a reliability Κ=.787 (95% CI 0.686-0.888) was reached. Large heterogeneity across study objectives, study designs, study populations, and reported results was found. Several key findings were identified. Evidence of the usefulness of clinical decision support for drug allergies has been documented. Nevertheless, there are some important problems associated with their use. Accurate and structured documenting of information on drug allergies in electronic health records (EHRs) is difficult, as it is often not clear to healthcare providers how and where to document drug allergies. Besides the underreporting of drug allergies, outdated or inaccurate drug allergy information in EHRs poses an important problem. Research on the use of coding terminologies for documenting drug allergies is sparse. There is no generally accepted standard terminology for structured documentation of allergy information. The final key finding is the consistently reported low specificity of drug allergy alerts. Current systems have high alert override rates of up to 90%, leading to alert fatigue. Important challenges remain for increasing the specificity of drug allergy alerts. We found only one study specifically reporting outcomes related to CDSS for drug allergies. It showed that adverse drug events resulting from overridden drug allergy alerts do not occur frequently. Conclusions Accurate and comprehensive recording of drug allergies is required for good use of CDSS for drug allergy screening. We found considerable variation in the way drug allergy are recorded in EHRs. It remains difficult to reduce drug allergy alert overload while maintaining patient safety as the highest priority. Future research should focus on improving alert specificity, thereby reducing override rates and alert fatigue. Also, the effect on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness should be evaluated.

High-priority and low-priority drug–drug interactions in different international electronic health record systems: A comparative study

OBJECTIVES To investigate whether alert warnings for high-priority and low-priority drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were present in five international electronic health record (EHR) systems, to compare and contrast the severity level assigned to them, and to establish the proportion of alerts that were overridden. METHODS We conducted a comparative, retrospective, multinational study using a convenience sample of 5 EHRs from the U.S., U.K., Republic of Korea and Belgium. RESULTS Of the 15 previously defined, high-priority, class-based DDIs, alert warnings were found to exist for 11 in both the Korean and UK systems, 9 in the Belgian system, and all 15 in the two US systems. The specific combinations that were included in these class-based DDIs varied considerably in number, type and level of severity amongst systems. Alerts were only active for 8.4% (52/619) and 52.4% (111/212) of the specific drug-drug combinations contained in the Belgian and UK systems, respectively. Hard stops (not possible to override) existed in the US and UK systems only. The override rates for high-priority alerts requiring provider action ranged from 56.7% to 83.3%. Of the 33 previously defined low-priority DDIs, active alerts existed only in the US systems, for three class-based DDIs. The majority were non-interruptive. CONCLUSIONS Alert warnings existed for most of the high-priority DDIs in the different EHRs but overriding them was easy in most of the systems. In addition to validating the high- and low-priority DDIs, this study reported a lack of standardization in DDI levels across different international knowledge bases.

Comparison of two approaches of INR-follow-up and determinants of INR-stability

Abstract Introduction: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and treated with coumarins need a close follow-up of the international normalized ratio (INR)-values. This can be done by the general practitioner (GP) or by a haematologist in an outpatient hospital clinic. Objective: To compare both ways of follow-up and to investigate determinants of stable INR-patterns. Methods: Cross-sectional single-centre study in patients with AF treated at the UZ Brussel, a university hospital in Brussels. Of the 113 patients included in the study, 71 had their INR followed-up by their GP and 42 similar patients were followed-up by a haematologist. Data of these 113 patients were further analysed to identify possible determinants for stable INR-values. Results: The time in therapeutic range (TTR) did not significantly differ between both groups. However, patients in the GP-group had significantly more INR-values under 2·0 compared to patients from the haematologist-group (P = 0·044), whereas patients in the haematologist-group had significantly more INR-values above 3·0 compared to patients from the GP-group (P = 0·038). Reimbursement costs of both ways of follow-up were comparable, but the out-of-pocket costs for the patient were lower in the GP-group. The time since AF diagnosis was the only significant determinant predicting a higher TTR. Conclusion: Both approaches of follow-up seem to lead to the same TTR, yielding no reason to advocate one approach above the other. However, the patient costs were lower when followed-up by the GP.