Department of Pharmacy, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Post Office 1350, 5602 ZA Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Artif Intell Med. 2013 Sep;59(1):33-8. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.05.002. Epub 2013 Jun 6.
In intensive care environments, technology is omnipresent whereby ensuring constant monitoring and the administration of critical drugs to unstable patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS), with its widespread possibilities, can be a valuable tool in supporting adequate patient care. However, it is still unclear how decision support alerts should be presented to physicians and other medical staff to ensure that they are used most effectively.
To determine the effect of four different alert presentation methods on alert compliance after the implementation of an advanced CDSS on the intensive care unit (ICU) in our hospital.
A randomized clinical trial was executed from August 2010 till December 2011, which included all patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital. The CDSS applied contained a set of thirteen locally developed clinical rules. The percentage of alert compliance was compared for four alert presentation methods: pharmacy intervention, physician alert list, electronic health record (EHR) section and pop-up alerts. Additionally, surveys were held to determine the method most preferred by users of the CDSS.
In the study period, the CDSS generated 902 unique alerts, primarily due to drug dosing during decreased renal function and potassium disturbances. Alert compliance was highest for recommendations offered in pop-up alerts (41%, n=68/166), followed by pharmacy intervention (33%, n=80/244), the physician alert list (20%, n=40/199) and the EHR section (19%, n=55/293). The method most preferred by clinicians was pharmacy intervention, and pop-up alerts were found suitable as well if applied correctly. The physician alert list and EHR section were not considered suitable for CDSSs in the process of this study.
The alert presentation method used for CDSSs is crucial for the compliance with alerts for the clinical rules and, consequently, for the efficacy of these systems. Active alerts such as pop-ups and pharmacy intervention were more effective than passive alerts, which do not automatically appear within the clinical workflow. In this pilot study, ICU clinicians also preferred pharmacy intervention and pop-up alerts. More research is required to expand these results to other departments and other hospitals, as well as to other types of CDSSs and different alert presentation methods.
在重症监护环境中,技术无处不在,可确保对不稳定患者进行持续监测和关键药物的管理。临床决策支持系统(CDSS)具有广泛的可能性,可以成为支持充分患者护理的有价值工具。但是,尚不清楚应如何向医生和其他医务人员呈现决策支持警报,以确保其得到最有效的利用。
确定在我们医院的重症监护病房(ICU)实施高级 CDSS 后,四种不同警报呈现方法对警报遵从性的影响。
我们于 2010 年 8 月至 2011 年 12 月执行了一项随机临床试验,其中纳入了我院 ICU 收治的所有患者。应用的 CDSS 包含一组 13 个本地开发的临床规则。比较了四种警报呈现方法的警报遵从率:药房干预、医生警报列表、电子健康记录(EHR)部分和弹出式警报。此外,还进行了调查,以确定 CDSS 用户最偏好的方法。
在研究期间,CDSS 生成了 902 个独特的警报,主要是由于肾功能下降和钾紊乱期间的药物剂量调整。弹出式警报中提供的建议的警报遵从率最高(41%,n=68/166),其次是药房干预(33%,n=80/244)、医生警报列表(20%,n=40/199)和 EHR 部分(19%,n=55/293)。临床医生最偏好的方法是药房干预,如果正确应用,弹出式警报也被认为是合适的。在这项研究过程中,医生警报列表和 EHR 部分不被认为适合 CDSS。
CDSS 中使用的警报呈现方法对于临床规则警报的遵从性以及这些系统的功效至关重要。主动警报(如弹出式警报和药房干预)比不自动出现在临床工作流程中的被动警报更有效。在这项试点研究中,重症监护病房的临床医生也更喜欢药房干预和弹出式警报。需要进一步的研究来将这些结果扩展到其他科室和其他医院,以及其他类型的 CDSS 和不同的警报呈现方法。