Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14(04): 779-788
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772686
Research Article

Barriers to Adoption of Tailored Drug–Drug Interaction Clinical Decision Support

Tianyi Zhang
1   Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Sheila M. Gephart
2   Advanced Nursing Practice and Science Division, College of Nursing, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Vignesh Subbian
1   Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Richard D. Boyce
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Lorenzo Villa-Zapata
4   Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
,
Malinda S. Tan
5   Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
John Horn
6   Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,
Ainhoa Gomez-Lumbreras
5   Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Andrew V. Romero
7   Department of Pharmacy, Tucson Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona
,
Daniel C. Malone
5   Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
› Author Affiliations Funding This project was supported by grant number R01HS025984 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. V.S. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1838745.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Despite the benefits of the tailored drug–drug interaction (DDI) alerts and the broad dissemination strategy, the uptake of our tailored DDI alert algorithms that are enhanced with patient-specific and context-specific factors has been limited. The goal of the study was to examine barriers and health care system dynamics related to implementing tailored DDI alerts and identify the factors that would drive optimization and improvement of DDI alerts.

Methods We employed a qualitative research approach, conducting interviews with a participant interview guide framed based on Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes and informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Participants included pharmacists with informatics roles within hospitals, chief medical informatics officers, and associate medical informatics directors/officers. Our data analysis was informed by the technique used in grounded theory analysis, and the reporting of open coding results was based on a modified version of the Safety-Related Electronic Health Record Research Reporting Framework.

Results Our analysis generated 15 barriers, and we mapped the interconnections of these barriers, which clustered around three entities (i.e., users, organizations, and technical stakeholders). Our findings revealed that misaligned interests regarding DDI alert performance and misaligned expectations regarding DDI alert optimizations among these entities within health care organizations could result in system inertia in implementing tailored DDI alerts.

Conclusion Health care organizations primarily determine the implementation and optimization of DDI alerts, and it is essential to identify and demonstrate value metrics that health care organizations prioritize to enable tailored DDI alert implementation. This could be achieved via a multifaceted approach, such as partnering with health care organizations that have the capacity to adopt tailored DDI alerts and identifying specialists who know users' needs, liaise with organizations and vendors, and facilitate technical stakeholders' work. In the future, researchers can adopt the systematic approach to study tailored DDI implementation problems from other system perspectives (e.g., the vendors' system).

Keywords

drug–drug interaction - clinical decision support systems - electronic health records - implementation science

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

All procedures in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Arizona and the University of Utah.


Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the National Science Foundation.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 13 February 2023

Accepted: 20 July 2023

Article published online:
04 October 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Egger SS, Drewe J, Schlienger RG. Potential drug-drug interactions in the medication of medical patients at hospital discharge. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 58 (11) 773-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tilson H, Hines LE, McEvoy G. et al. Recommendations for selecting drug-drug interactions for clinical decision support. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2016; 73 (08) 576-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Magro L, Moretti U, Leone R. Epidemiology and characteristics of adverse drug reactions caused by drug-drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2012; 11 (01) 83-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Van De Sijpe G, Quintens C, Walgraeve K. et al. Overall performance of a drug-drug interaction clinical decision support system: quantitative evaluation and end-user survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022; 22 (01) 48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vonbach P, Dubied A, Krähenbühl S, Beer JH. Prevalence of drug-drug interactions at hospital entry and during hospital stay of patients in internal medicine. Eur J Intern Med 2008; 19 (06) 413-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (06) 501-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés M, Pérez-Menéndez-Conde C, Bermejo-Vicedo T. Systematic review of computerized prescriber order entry and clinical decision support. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018; 75 (23) 1909-1921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Roumeliotis N, Sniderman J, Adams-Webber T. et al. Effect of electronic prescribing strategies on medication error and harm in hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34 (10) 2210-2223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
  • 11 McGreevey III JD, Mallozzi CP, Perkins RM, Shelov E, Schreiber R. Reducing alert burden in electronic health records: state of the art recommendations from four health systems. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (01) 1-12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Horn JR, Gumpper KF, Hardy JC, McDonnell PJ, Phansalkar S, Reilly C. Clinical decision support for drug-drug interactions: improvement needed. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2013; 70 (10) 905-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Harper MB, Longhurst CA, McGuire TL, Tarrago R, Desai BR, Patterson A. Children's Hospital Association CDS working group. Core drug-drug interaction alerts for inclusion in pediatric electronic health records with computerized prescriber order entry. J Patient Saf 2014; 10 (01) 59-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McEvoy DS, Sittig DF, Hickman TT. et al. Variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction alerts across institutions and electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 331-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kesselheim AS, Cresswell K, Phansalkar S, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Clinical decision support systems could be modified to reduce 'alert fatigue' while still minimizing the risk of litigation. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30 (12) 2310-2317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Shah NR, Seger AC, Seger DL. et al. Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (01) 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Payne TH, Nichol WP, Hoey P, Savarino J. Characteristics and override rates of order checks in a practitioner order entry system. Proc AMIA Symp. Published online 2002: 602-606
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bryant AD, Fletcher GS, Payne TH. Drug interaction alert override rates in the meaningful use era: no evidence of progress. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (03) 802-813
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Edrees H, Amato MG, Wong A, Seger DL, Bates DW. High-priority drug-drug interaction clinical decision support overrides in a newly implemented commercial computerized provider order-entry system: override appropriateness and adverse drug events. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (06) 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Villa Zapata L, Subbian V, Boyce RD. et al. Overriding drug-drug interaction alerts in clinical decision support systems: a scoping review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2022; 290: 380-384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Russ AL, Chen S, Melton BL. et al. A novel design for drug-drug interaction alerts improves prescribing efficiency. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2015; 41 (09) 396-405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Payne TH, Hines LE, Chan RC. et al. Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (06) 1243-1250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tolley CL, Slight SP, Husband AK, Watson N, Bates DW. Improving medication-related clinical decision support. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018; 75 (04) 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Muylle KM, Gentens K, Dupont AG, Cornu P. Evaluation of an optimized context-aware clinical decision support system for drug-drug interaction screening. Int J Med Inform 2021; 148: 104393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Horn J, Ueng S. The effect of patient-specific drug-drug interaction alerting on the frequency of alerts: a pilot study. Ann Pharmacother 2019; 53 (11) 1087-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chou E, Boyce RD, Balkan B. et al. Designing and evaluating contextualized drug-drug interaction algorithms. JAMIA Open 2021; 4 (01) ooab023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 ddi-cds.org – Drug-Drug Interaction Clinical Decision Support. Accessed June 24, 2022 at: https://ddi-cds.org/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Drug-Drug Interactions with Colchicine – ddi-cds.org. Accessed May 10, 2023 at: https://ddi-cds.org/drug-drug-interactions-with-colchicine/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R. et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38 (02) 65-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R. et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci 2017; 12 (01) 77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: : SAGE; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Singh H, Sittig DF. A sociotechnical framework for safety-related electronic health record research reporting: the safer reporting framework. Ann Intern Med 2020; 172 (11) S92-S100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Titler MG, Everett LQ. Translating research into practice. Considerations for critical care investigators. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2001; 13 (04) 587-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rogers EM, Singhal A, Quinlan MM. Diffusion of innovations. In: An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Third Edit. Routledge; 2019: 415-433
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Appelbaum SH. Socio-technical Systems. Manage Decis 1997; 35 (06) 452-463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McLachlan S, Dube K, Johnson O. et al. A framework for analysing learning health systems: are we removing the most impactful barriers?. Learn Health Syst 2019; 3 (04) e10189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Byrne CB, Sherry DS, Mercincavage L, Johnston D, Pan E, Schiff G. Key Lessons in Clinical Decision Support Implementation. Westat Tech Repport; 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Ramanadhan S, Revette AC, Lee RM, Aveling EL. Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction. Implement Sci Commun 2021; 2 (01) 70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Jung SY, Hwang H, Lee K. et al. Barriers and facilitators to implementation of medication decision support systems in electronic medical records: mixed methods approach based on structural equation modeling and qualitative analysis. JMIR Med Inform 2020; 8 (07) e18758
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Baysari MT, Van Dort BA, Stanceski K. et al. Is evidence of effectiveness a driver for clinical decision support selection? A qualitative descriptive study of senior hospital staff. Int J Qual Health Care 2023; 35 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 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
  • 43 Kilsdonk E, Peute LW, Jaspers MWM. Factors influencing implementation success of guideline-based clinical decision support systems: a systematic review and gaps analysis. Int J Med Inform 2017; 98: 56-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Liberati EG, Ruggiero F, Galuppo L. et al. What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2017; 12 (01) 113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Anfara VA, Brown KM, Mangione TL. Qualitative analysis on stage: making the research process more public. Educ Res 2002; 31 (07) 28-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Devers KJ. How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res 1999; 34 (5 Pt 2): 1153-1188
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract 2000; 39 (03) 124-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publ Inc; 2015: 832
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Patton MQ. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 1999; 34 (5 Pt 2): 1189-1208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015; 42 (05) 533-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Gibbs L, Kealy M, Willis K, Green J, Welch N, Daly J. What have sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research?. Aust N Z J Public Health 2007; 31 (06) 540-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Teach Sociol 2002; 30 (03) 380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar