DDI clinical decision support alerts need major improvements. We provide recommendations for healthcare organizations and IT vendors to improve the clinician interface of DDI alerts, with the aim of reducing alert fatigue and improving patient safety.

Background Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations. Objective To provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents with respect to DDIs for clinical decision support. Methods A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 15 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations. Results We developed expert-consensus answers to three key questions: 1) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence?; 2) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs?; and 3) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated? Conclusion Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug information systems that implement these recommendations should be able to provide higher quality information about DDIs in drug compendia and clinical decision support tools.

Purpose To recommend principles for including drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in clinical decision support. Methods A conference series was conducted to improve clinical decision support (CDS) for DDIs. The Content Workgroup met monthly by webinar from January 2013 to February 2014, with two in-person meetings to reach consensus. The workgroup consisted of 20 experts in pharmacology, drug information, and CDS from academia, government agencies, health information (IT) vendors, and healthcare organizations. Workgroup members addressed four key questions: (1) What process should be used to develop and maintain a standard set of DDIs?; (2) What information should be included in a knowledgebase of standard DDIs?; (3) Can/should a list of contraindicated drug pairs be established?; and (4) How can DDI alerts be more intelligently filtered? Results To develop and maintain a standard set of DDIs for CDS in the United States, we recommend a transparent, systematic, and evidence-driven process with graded recommendations by a consensus panel of experts and oversight by a national organization. We outline key DDI information needed to help guide clinician decision-making. We recommend judicious classification of DDIs as contraindicated, as only a small set of drug combinations are truly contraindicated. Finally, we recommend more research to identify methods to safely reduce repetitive and less relevant alerts. Conclusion A systematic ongoing process is necessary to select DDIs for alerting clinicians. We anticipate that our recommendations can lead to consistent and clinically relevant content for interruptive DDIs, and thus reduce alert fatigue and improve patient safety.

No abstract

SummaryObjective: Decisions made during electronic health record (EHR) implementations profoundly affect usability and safety. This study aims to identify gaps between the current literature and key stakeholders' perceptions of usability and safety practices and the challenges encountered during the implementation of EHRs. Materials and Methods: Two approaches were used: a literature review and interviews with key stakeholders. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify usability and safety challenges and best practices during implementation. A total of 55 articles were reviewed through searches of PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. We used a qualitative approach to identify key stakeholders' perceptions; semi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse set of health IT stakeholders to understand their current practices and challenges related to usability during implementation. We used a grounded theory approach: data were coded, sorted, and emerging themes were identified. Conclusions from both sources of data were compared to identify areas of misalignment. Results: We identified six emerging themes from the literature and stakeholder interviews: cost and resources, risk assessment, governance and consensus building, customization, clinical workflow and usability testing, and training. Across these themes, there were misalignments between the literature and stakeholder perspectives, indicating major gaps. Discussion: Major gaps identified from each of six emerging themes are discussed as critical areas for future research, opportunities for new stakeholder initiatives, and opportunities to better disseminate resources to improve the implementation of EHRs. Conclusion: Our analysis identified practices and challenges across six different emerging themes, illustrated important gaps, and results suggest critical areas for future research and dissemination to improve EHR implementation. Citation: Ratwani R et al.: Review to identify usability and safety challenges and practices during EHR implementation.