Clinical Decision Support Systems in Hospitalized Older Patients: An Exploratory Analysis in a Real-Life Clinical Setting.

IF 1.9 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Drugs - Real World Outcomes Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-24 DOI:10.1007/s40801-023-00365-3
Aimée E M J H Linkens, Dennis Kurstjens, N Anne Zwietering, Vanja Milosevic, Kim P G M Hurkens, Noémi van Nie, Bob P A van de Loo, P Hugo M van der Kuy, Bart Spaetgens
{"title":"Clinical Decision Support Systems in Hospitalized Older Patients: An Exploratory Analysis in a Real-Life Clinical Setting.","authors":"Aimée E M J H Linkens,&nbsp;Dennis Kurstjens,&nbsp;N Anne Zwietering,&nbsp;Vanja Milosevic,&nbsp;Kim P G M Hurkens,&nbsp;Noémi van Nie,&nbsp;Bob P A van de Loo,&nbsp;P Hugo M van der Kuy,&nbsp;Bart Spaetgens","doi":"10.1007/s40801-023-00365-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPERAM and SENATOR) have shown negative results on the use of CDSSs and patient outcomes and strikingly low acceptance of recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. As such, we report on the real-life pattern of this in-hospital implemented CDSS, including (i) whether generated alerts were resolved; (ii) whether a recorded action by the pharmacist led to an improved number of resolved alerts; and (iii) the natural course of generated alerts, in particular of those in the non-intervention group; as these data are largely lacking in current studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Hospitalized patients, aged 60 years and older, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre, the Netherlands, in 2018 were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Alongside demographic and clinical data, we also collected the total numbers of CDSS alerts, the number of alerts 'handled' by the pharmacist, those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist, and finally the outcome of the alerts at day 1 and day 3 after the alert was generated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, 8073 alerts were generated, of which 7907 (97.9% of total) were handled by the pharmacist (day 1). In 51.6% of the alerts handled by the pharmacist, an action was initiated, resulting in 36.1% of the alerts resolved after day 1, compared with 27.3% if the pharmacist did not perform an action (p < 0.001). On day 3, in 52.6% of the alerts an action by the pharmacist was initiated, resulting in 62.4% resolved alerts, compared with 48.0% when no action was performed (p < 0.001). In the category renal function, the percentages differed significantly between an action versus no action of the pharmacist at day 1 and at day 3 (16.6% vs 10.6%, p < 0.001 [day 1]; 29.8% vs 19.4%, p < 0.001 [day 3]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates the pattern and natural course of clinical alerts of an in-hospital implemented CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. Besides the already known beneficial effect of actions by pharmacists, we have also shown that many alerts become resolved without any specific intervention. As such, our study provides an important insight into the spontaneous course of resolved alerts, since these data are currently lacking in the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":11282,"journal":{"name":"Drugs - Real World Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/33/3e/40801_2023_Article_365.PMC10491559.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs - Real World Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-023-00365-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Inappropriate prescribing is associated with negative patient outcomes. In hospitalized patients, the use of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) may reduce inappropriate prescribing and thereby improve patient-related outcomes. However, recently published large clinical trials (OPERAM and SENATOR) have shown negative results on the use of CDSSs and patient outcomes and strikingly low acceptance of recommendations.

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. As such, we report on the real-life pattern of this in-hospital implemented CDSS, including (i) whether generated alerts were resolved; (ii) whether a recorded action by the pharmacist led to an improved number of resolved alerts; and (iii) the natural course of generated alerts, in particular of those in the non-intervention group; as these data are largely lacking in current studies.

Methods: Hospitalized patients, aged 60 years and older, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre, the Netherlands, in 2018 were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Alongside demographic and clinical data, we also collected the total numbers of CDSS alerts, the number of alerts 'handled' by the pharmacist, those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist, and finally the outcome of the alerts at day 1 and day 3 after the alert was generated.

Results: A total of 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, 8073 alerts were generated, of which 7907 (97.9% of total) were handled by the pharmacist (day 1). In 51.6% of the alerts handled by the pharmacist, an action was initiated, resulting in 36.1% of the alerts resolved after day 1, compared with 27.3% if the pharmacist did not perform an action (p < 0.001). On day 3, in 52.6% of the alerts an action by the pharmacist was initiated, resulting in 62.4% resolved alerts, compared with 48.0% when no action was performed (p < 0.001). In the category renal function, the percentages differed significantly between an action versus no action of the pharmacist at day 1 and at day 3 (16.6% vs 10.6%, p < 0.001 [day 1]; 29.8% vs 19.4%, p < 0.001 [day 3]).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the pattern and natural course of clinical alerts of an in-hospital implemented CDSS in a real-life clinical setting of hospitalized older patients. Besides the already known beneficial effect of actions by pharmacists, we have also shown that many alerts become resolved without any specific intervention. As such, our study provides an important insight into the spontaneous course of resolved alerts, since these data are currently lacking in the literature.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住院老年患者的临床决策支持系统:在现实临床环境中的探索性分析。
背景:不适当的处方与患者的负面结果有关。在住院患者中,使用临床决策支持系统(CDSS)可以减少不适当的处方,从而改善与患者相关的结果。然而,最近发表的大型临床试验(OPERAM和SENATOR)在CDSS的使用和患者结果方面显示出负面结果,对建议的接受度极低。目的:本研究的目的是调查CDSS在住院老年患者的真实临床环境中的使用情况。因此,我们报告了这种在医院实施的CDSS的真实模式,包括(i)生成的警报是否得到解决;(ii)药剂师的记录动作是否导致解决警报的数量增加;以及(iii)生成警报的自然过程,特别是非干预组的警报;因为这些数据在当前的研究中基本上是缺乏的。方法:纳入2018年在荷兰Zuyderland医疗中心住院的60岁及以上的患者。使用用于标准护理的数据库对CDSS的评估进行调查。除了人口统计和临床数据外,我们还收集了CDSS警报的总数、药剂师“处理”的警报数量、导致药剂师采取行动的警报数量,以及警报生成后第1天和第3天的警报结果。结果:共有3574名独特的住院患者,平均年龄76.7岁(标准差8.3),其中53%为女性。从这些患者中,产生了8073个警报,其中7907个(占总数的97.9%)由药剂师处理(第1天)。在药剂师处理的51.6%的警报中,启动了一项行动,导致36.1%的警报在第1天后得到解决,相比之下,如果药剂师不采取行动,这一比例为27.3%(p结论:这项研究展示了在住院老年患者的真实临床环境中,在医院实施CDSS的临床警报的模式和自然过程。除了药剂师的行动已经知道的有益效果外,我们还表明,许多警报在没有任何具体干预的情况下就会得到解决。因此,我们的研究为o解决警报的自发过程,因为这些数据目前在文献中缺乏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs - Real World Outcomes
Drugs - Real World Outcomes PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Drugs - Real World Outcomes targets original research and definitive reviews regarding the use of real-world data to evaluate health outcomes and inform healthcare decision-making on drugs, devices and other interventions in clinical practice. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas: Using registries/databases/health records and other non-selected observational datasets to investigate: drug use and treatment outcomes prescription patterns drug safety signals adherence to treatment guidelines benefit : risk profiles comparative effectiveness economic analyses including cost-of-illness Data-driven research methodologies, including the capture, curation, search, sharing, analysis and interpretation of ‘big data’ Techniques and approaches to optimise real-world modelling.
期刊最新文献
A Pilot Study on the Collection of Adverse Event Data from the Patient Using an Electronic Platform in a Cancer Clinical Trial Unit. Comparison of the Safety of Aspirin Monotherapy and Aspirin and P2Y12 Inhibitor Combination Therapy in Patients Post Coil Embolization During Admission: A Cross-Sectional Study Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database. US Clinical Practice Experience with Eculizumab in Myasthenia Gravis: Acute Clinical Events and Healthcare Resource Utilization. Clinical Significance of Prior Ramucirumab Use on the Effectiveness of Nivolumab as the Third-Line Regimen in Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Early Clinical Outcomes of Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World Comparison with First-Line or Later-Line Treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1