Customization of computer-triggered alert systems is more useful in detecting and resolving prescribing problems than on-demand review, but neither approach was effective in reducing prescribing problems. New strategies are needed to maximize the use of drug decision support systems to reduce drug-related morbidity.

Primary care physicians believed an integrated electronic prescribing and drug management system would improve continuity of care, and they were more likely to use the system for patients with more complex, fragmented care.

Adverse clinical events related to inappropriate prescribing practices are an important threat to patient safety. Avoidance of inappropriate prescribing in community settings, where the majority of prescriptions are written, offers a major area of opportunity to improve quality of care and outcomes. Electronic medication order entry systems, with automated clinical risk screening and online alerting capabilities, appear as particularly promising enabling tools in such settings. The Medical Office of the Twenty First Century (MOXXI-III) research group is currently utilizing such a system that integrates identification of dosing errors, adverse drug interactions, drug-disease and allergy contraindications and potential toxicity or contraindications based on patient age. This paper characterizes the spectrum of alerts in an urban community of care involving 28 physicians and 32 pharmacies. Over a consecutive nine-month period, alerts were generated in 29% of 22,419 prescriptions, resulting in revised prescriptions in 14% of the alert cases. Drug-disease contraindications were the most common driver of alerts, accounting for 41% of the total and resulting in revised prescriptions in 14% of cases. In contrast, potential dosing errors generated only 8% of all alerts, but resulted in revised prescriptions 23% of the time. Overall, online evidence-based screening and alerting around prescription of medications in a community setting demands confirmation in prescribers' clinical decision making in almost one-third of prescriptions and leads to changed decisions in up to onequarter of some prescribing categories. Its ultimate determination of clinical relevance to patient safety may, however, have to await more detailed examination of physician response to alerts and patient outcomes as a primary measure of utility.Patient safety is an increasingly recognized challenge and opportunity for stakeholders in improving health care delivery. It involves many issues, including delayed diagnosis and treatment, as well as inappropriate undertreatment and overtreatment. The common denominators, however, are that care and outcomes could be better, and there is a role for patients, providers and policy makers in making improvements.

BackgroundHealth problem lists are a key component of electronic health records and are instrumental in the development of decision-support systems that encourage best practices and optimal patient safety. Most health problem lists require initial clinical information to be entered manually and few integrate information across care providers and institutions. This study assesses the accuracy of a novel approach to create an inter-institutional automated health problem list in a computerized medical record (MOXXI) that integrates three sources of information for an individual patient: diagnostic codes from medical services claims from all treating physicians, therapeutic indications from electronic prescriptions, and single-indication drugs.MethodsData for this study were obtained from 121 general practitioners and all medical services provided for 22,248 of their patients. At the opening of a patient's file, all health problems detected through medical service utilization or single-indication drug use were flagged to the physician in the MOXXI system. Each new arising health problem were presented as 'potential' and physicians were prompted to specify if the health problem was valid (Y) or not (N) or if they preferred to reassess its validity at a later time.ResultsA total of 263,527 health problems, representing 891 unique problems, were identified for the group of 22,248 patients. Medical services claims contributed to the majority of problems identified (77%), followed by therapeutic indications from electronic prescriptions (14%), and single-indication drugs (9%). Physicians actively chose to assess 41.7% (n = 106,950) of health problems. Overall, 73% of the problems assessed were considered valid; 42% originated from medical service diagnostic codes, 11% from single indication drugs, and 47% from prescription indications. Twelve percent of problems identified through other treating physicians were considered valid compared to 28% identified through study physician claims.ConclusionAutomation of an inter-institutional problem list added over half of all validated problems to the health problem list of which 12% were generated by conditions treated by other physicians. Automating the integration of existing information sources provides timely access to accurate and relevant health problem information. It may also accelerate the uptake and use of electronic medical record systems.

No abstract

BackgroundAsthma is a prevalent and costly disease resulting in reduced quality of life for a large proportion of individuals. Effective patient self-management is critical for improving health outcomes. However, key aspects of self-management such as self-monitoring of behaviours and symptoms, coupled with regular feedback from the health care team, are rarely addressed or integrated into ongoing care. Health information technology (HIT) provides unique opportunities to facilitate this by providing a means for two way communication and exchange of information between the patient and care team, and access to their health information, presented in personalized ways that can alert them when there is a need for action. The objective of this study is to evaluate the acceptability and efficacy of using a web-based self-management system, My Asthma Portal (MAP), linked to a case-management system on asthma control, and asthma health-related quality of life.MethodsThe trial is a parallel multi-centered 2-arm pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants are randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a) MAP and usual care; or b) usual care alone. Individuals will be included if they are between 18 and 70, have a confirmed asthma diagnosis, and their asthma is classified as not well controlled by their physician. Asthma control will be evaluated by calculating the amount of fast acting beta agonists recorded as dispensed in the provincial drug database, and asthma quality of life using the Mini Asthma Related Quality of Life Questionnaire. Power calculations indicated a needed total sample size of 80 subjects. Data are collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months post randomization. Recruitment started in March 2010 and the inclusion of patients in the trial in June 2010.DiscussionSelf-management support from the care team is critical for improving chronic disease outcomes. Given the high volume of patients and time constraints during clinical visits, primary care physicians have limited time to teach and reinforce use of proven self-management strategies. HIT has the potential to provide clinicians and a large number of patients with tools to support health behaviour change.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN34326236.

BackgroundPublic pressure has increasingly emphasized the need to ensure the continuing quality of care provided by health professionals over their careers. Health profession's regulatory authorities, mandated to be publicly accountable for safe and effective care, are revising their quality assurance programs to focus on regular evaluations of practitioner performance. New methods for routine screening of performance are required and the use of administrative data for measuring performance on quality of care indicators has been suggested as one attractive option. Preliminary studies have shown that community pharmacy claims databases contain the information required to operationalize quality of care indicators. The purpose of this project was to determine the feasibility of routine use of information from these databases by regulatory authorities to screen the quality of care provided at community pharmacies.MethodsInformation from the Canadian province of Quebec's medication insurance program provided data on prescriptions dispensed in 2002 by more than 5000 pharmacists in 1799 community pharmacies. Pharmacy-specific performance rates were calculated on four quality of care indicators: two safety indicators (dispensing of contra-indicated benzodiazepines to seniors and dispensing of nonselective beta-blockers to patients with respiratory disease) and two effectiveness indicators (dispensing asthma or hypertension medications to non-compliant patients). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize performance.ResultsReliable estimates of performance could be obtained for more than 90% of pharmacies. The average rate of dispensing was 4.3% (range 0 - 42.5%) for contra-indicated benzodiazepines, 15.2% (range 0 - 100%) for nonselective beta-blockers to respiratory patients, 10.7% (range 0 - 70%) for hypertension medications to noncompliant patients, and 43.3% (0 - 91.6%) for short-acting beta-agonists in over-use situations. There were modest correlations in performance across the four indicators. Nine pharmacies (0.5%) performed in the lowest quartile in all four of the indicators, and 5.3% (n = 95) performed in the lowest quartile on three of four indicators.ConclusionsRoutinely collected pharmacy claims data can be used to monitor indicators of the quality of care provided in community pharmacies, and may be useful in future to identify underperforming pharmacists, measure the impact of policy changes and determine predictors of best practices.

Despite equal or enhanced efficacy, there is consistently less prescription of proven drugs among older cardiac patients. These care patterns may contribute to their enhanced risk. The causes underlying these practice patterns are complex, and their population impact may be undervalued by clinicians and managers. Improvement of these patterns is difficult, but ultimately it would be beneficial for this presently disadvantaged, readily identified, high risk patient population.