Cho Insook, Lee Yura, Lee Jae-Ho, Bates David W
Nursing Department, Inha University, Incheon, South Korea.
Division of General Internal Medicine, The Center for Patient Safety Research and Practice, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Mar 1;31(2):89-95. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy102.
Providing physicians with alerts about potentially harmful drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is only moderately effective due to high alert override rates. To understand high override behavior on DDI alerts, we investigated how physicians respond to DDIs and their behavior patterns and variations.
Retrospective system log data analysis and records review (sampling 2% of total overrides).
A large tertiary academic hospital.
About 560 physicians and their override responses to DDI alerts generated from 1 September to 31 December 2014.
Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): DDI alert frequency and override rate.
We found significant variation in both the number of alerts and override rates at the levels of physicians, departments and drug-class pairs. Physician-level variations were wider for residents than for faculty staff (number of alerts: t = 254.17, P = 0.011; override rates: t = -4.77, P < 0.0001). Using the number of alerts and their override rate, we classified physicians into four groups: inexperienced incautious users, inexperienced cautious users, experienced cautious users and experienced incautious users. Medical department influenced both alert numbers and override rates. Nearly 90% of the overrides involved only five drug-class combinations, which had a wide range of appropriateness in the chart review.
The variations at drug-class levels suggest issues with system design and the DDI rules. Department-level variation may be best addressed at the department level, and the rest of the variation appears related to individual physician responses, suggesting the need for interventions at an individual level.
由于高警报忽略率,向医生提供关于潜在有害药物相互作用(DDIs)的警报仅具有中等效果。为了解医生对DDI警报的高忽略行为,我们调查了医生如何应对DDIs及其行为模式和差异。
回顾性系统日志数据分析和记录审查(对总忽略情况的2%进行抽样)。
一家大型三级学术医院。
约560名医生及其对2014年9月1日至12月31日生成的DDI警报的忽略回复。
不适用。
DDI警报频率和忽略率。
我们发现,在医生、科室和药物类别对层面,警报数量和忽略率均存在显著差异。住院医师层面的医生差异比教职员工层面的更广泛(警报数量:t = 254.17,P = 0.011;忽略率:t = -4.77,P < 0.0001)。利用警报数量及其忽略率,我们将医生分为四组:经验不足的粗心使用者、经验不足的谨慎使用者、经验丰富的谨慎使用者和经验丰富的粗心使用者。医学科室对警报数量和忽略率均有影响。近90%的忽略仅涉及五种药物类别组合,在病历审查中其合理性范围广泛。
药物类别层面的差异表明系统设计和DDI规则存在问题。科室层面的差异可能最好在科室层面解决,而其余差异似乎与个体医生的反应有关,这表明需要在个体层面进行干预。