Beeler Patrick E, Orav E John, Seger Diane L, Dykes Patricia C, Bates David W
Division of General Internal Medicine & Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Research Center for Medical Informatics, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.
Division of General Internal Medicine & Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Apr;23(e1):e93-8. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv117. Epub 2015 Oct 24.
Variation in the use of tests and treatments has been demonstrated to be substantial between providers and geographic regions. This study assessed variation between outpatient providers in overriding electronic prescribing warnings.
Responses to warnings were prospectively logged. Random effects models were used to calculate provider-to-provider variation in the rates for the decisions to override warnings in 6 different clinical domains: medication allergies, drug-drug interactions, duplicate drugs, renal recommendations, age-based recommendations, and formulary substitutions.
A total of 157 482 responses were logged. Differences between 1717 providers accounted for 11% of the overall variability in override rates, so that while the average override rate was 45.2%, individual provider rates had a wide range with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (13.7%-76.7% ). The highest variations between providers were observed in the categories age-based (25.4% of total variability; average override rate 70.2% [95% CI, 29.1%-100% ]) and renal recommendations (24.2%; average 70% [95% CI, 29.5%-100% ]), and provider responses within these 2 categories were most often clinically inappropriate according to prior work. Among providers who received at least 10 age-based recommendations, 64 of 238 (27%) overrode ≥ 90% of the warnings and 13 of 238 (5%) overrode all of them. Of those who received at least 10 renal recommendations, 36 of 92 (39%) overrode ≥ 90% of the alerts and 9 of 92 (10%) overrode all of them.
The decision to override prescribing warnings shows variation between providers, and the magnitude of variation differs among the clinical domains of the warnings; more variation was observed in areas with more inappropriate overrides.
研究表明,不同医疗服务提供者以及不同地理区域在检查和治疗的使用上存在显著差异。本研究评估了门诊医疗服务提供者在忽略电子处方警告方面的差异。
前瞻性记录对警告的回应。使用随机效应模型计算1717名医疗服务提供者在6个不同临床领域忽略警告决策率的个体差异,这6个领域包括药物过敏、药物相互作用、重复用药、肾脏用药建议、基于年龄的用药建议以及处方替换。
共记录了157482条回应。1717名医疗服务提供者之间的差异占忽略率总体变异性的11%,因此,虽然平均忽略率为45.2%,但个体医疗服务提供者的忽略率范围很广,95%置信区间(CI)为(13.7%-76.7%)。医疗服务提供者之间差异最大的类别是基于年龄的用药建议(占总变异性的25.4%;平均忽略率70.2% [95% CI,29.1%-100%])和肾脏用药建议(24.2%;平均70% [95% CI,29.5%-100%]),根据先前的研究,这两类中的医疗服务提供者回应在临床上最常是不恰当的。在收到至少10条基于年龄的用药建议的医疗服务提供者中,238人中有64人(27%)忽略了≥90%的警告,238人中有13人(5%)忽略了所有警告。在收到至少10条肾脏用药建议的医疗服务提供者中,92人中有36人(39%)忽略了≥90%的警报,92人中有9人(10%)忽略了所有警报。
忽略处方警告的决策在医疗服务提供者之间存在差异,且差异程度在警告的不同临床领域有所不同;在更多不恰当忽略的领域观察到了更大的差异。