Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(03): 436-444
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730030
Research Article

Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Sedative-Hypnotic Prescribing in Older Adults

Natasha N. Joglekar
1   Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts, United Sates
,
Yatindra Patel
2   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United Sates
,
Michelle S. Keller
2   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United Sates
3   Division of Informatics, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United Sates
4   Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United Sates
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective We sought to characterize the performance of inpatient and outpatient computerized clinical decision support (CDS) alerts aimed at reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine sedative medication prescribing in older adults 18 months after implementation.

Methods We reviewed the performance of two CDS alerts in the outpatient and inpatient settings in 2019. To examine the alerts' effectiveness, we analyzed metrics including overall alert adherence, provider-level adherence, and reasons for alert trigger and override.

Results In 2019, we identified a total of 14,534 and 4,834 alerts triggered in the outpatient and inpatient settings, respectively. Providers followed only 1% of outpatient and 3% of inpatient alerts. Most alerts were ignored (68% outpatient and 60% inpatient), while providers selected to override the remaining alerts. In each setting, the top 2% of clinicians were responsible for approximately 25% of all ignored or overridden alerts. However, a small proportion of clinicians (2% outpatient and 4% inpatient) followed the alert at least half of the time and accounted for a disproportionally large fraction of the total followed alerts. Our analysis of the free-text comments revealed that many alerts were to continue outpatient prescriptions or for situational anxiety.

Conclusion Our findings highlight the importance of evaluation of CDS performance after implementation. We found large variation in response to the inpatient and outpatient alerts, both with respect to follow and ignore rates. Reevaluating the alert design by providing decision support by indication may be more helpful and may reduce alert fatigue.

Keywords

implementation and deployment - testing and evaluation - clinical decision support - alert fatigue - medication management

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was reviewed and deemed exempt from human subjects protection by the Cedars-Sinai Health System Institutional Review Board.




Publication History

Received: 09 November 2020

Accepted: 05 April 2021

Article published online:
09 June 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bates DW, Boyle DL, Vander Vliet MB, Schneider J, Leape L. Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10 (04) 199-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998; 279 (15) 1200-1205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One 2009; 4 (02) e4439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bourgeois FT, Shannon MW, Valim C, Mandl KD. Adverse drug events in the outpatient setting: an 11-year national analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19 (09) 901-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. eds.; Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163 (12) 1409-1416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ibáñez-Garcia S, Rodriguez-Gonzalez C, Escudero-Vilaplana V. et al. Development and evaluation of a clinical decision support system to improve medication safety. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (03) 513-520
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yourman L, Concato J, Agostini JV. Use of computer decision support interventions to improve medication prescribing in older adults: a systematic review. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2008; 6 (02) 119-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (02) 138-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Topaz M, Seger DL, Slight SP. et al. Rising drug allergy alert overrides in electronic health records: an observational retrospective study of a decade of experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (03) 601-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Embi PJ, Leonard AC. Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (e1): e145-e148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 By the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 Updated AGS Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019; 67 (04) 674-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Markota M, Rummans TA, Bostwick JM, Lapid MI. Benzodiazepine use in older adults: dangers, management, and alternative therapies. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 87 (05) 331-336
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Field TS, Gurwitz JH, Harrold LR. et al. Risk factors for adverse drug events among older adults in the ambulatory setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52 (08) 1349-1354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pretorius RW, Gataric G, Swedlund SK, Miller JR. Reducing the risk of adverse drug events in older adults. Am Fam Physician 2013; 87 (05) 331-336
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ashton H. Guidelines for the rational use of benzodiazepines. When and what to use. Drugs 1994; 48 (01) 25-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fluyau D, Revadigar N, Manobianco BE. Challenges of the pharmacological management of benzodiazepine withdrawal, dependence, and discontinuation. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol 2018; 8 (05) 147-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pottie K, Thompson W, Davies S. et al. Deprescribing benzodiazepine receptor agonists: evidence-based clinical practice guideline. Can Fam Physician 2018; 64 (05) 339-351
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wright A, Ai A, Ash J. et al. Clinical decision support alert malfunctions: analysis and empirically derived taxonomy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (05) 496-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (05) 547-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Saiyed SM, Davis KR, Kaelber DC. Differences, opportunities, and strategies in drug alert optimization-experiences of two different integrated health care systems. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 777-782
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Humphrey KE, Mirica M, Phansalkar S, Ozonoff A, Harper MB. Clinician perceptions of timing and presentation of drug-drug interaction alerts. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 487-496
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Barnett ML, Olenski AR, Jena AB. Opioid-prescribing patterns of emergency physicians and risk of long-term use. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (07) 663-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Quinn KL, Campitelli MA, Diong C. et al. Association between physician intensity of antibiotic prescribing and the prescription of benzodiazepines, opioids and proton-pump inhibitors to nursing home residents: a population-based observational study. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34 (12) 2763-2771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lau MK, Bounthavong M, Kay CL, Harvey MA, Christopher MLD. Clinical dashboard development and use for academic detailing in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2019; 59 (2S): S96-S103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Soong C, Burry L, Cho HJ. et al. An implementation guide to promote sleep and reduce sedative-hypnotic initiation for noncritically ill inpatients. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179 (07) 965-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lee YC, Lu B, Guan H, Greenberg JD, Kremer J, Solomon DH. Physician prescribing patterns and risk of future long-term opioid use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective observational cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72 (07) 1082-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R. et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001; 39 (08, Suppl 2): II2-II45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR. et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315 (06) 562-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Linder JA, Meeker D, Fox CR. et al. Effects of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care 12 months after stopping interventions. JAMA 2017; 318 (14) 1391-1392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Doctor JN, Nguyen A, Lev R. et al. Opioid prescribing decreases after learning of a patient's fatal overdose. Science 2018; 361 (6402): 588-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar