PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2025; 16(02): 295-304
DOI: 10.1055/a-2481-4221
Research Article

Facilitators and Barriers to Uptake of Drug–Drug Interaction Alerts: Perspectives of Australian End Users and Managers

Kristian Stanceski
1   Faculty of Medicine and Health, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Bethany A. Van Dort
1   Faculty of Medicine and Health, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Teresa Lee
2   Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
,
Andrew J. McLachlan
2   Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
,
Richard O. Day
3   Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
4   Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, St Vincent's Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, St Vincent's Clinical Campus, St Vincent's Hospital, Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia
,
Sarah N. Hilmer
5   Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
6   Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
,
Ling Li
7   Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia
,
Johanna Westbrook
7   Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia
,
Wu Yi Zheng
1   Faculty of Medicine and Health, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
8   Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Hospital Rd, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
,
Michael Barras
9   Pharmacy Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
10   School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
,
Karma Z.S. Mekhail
11   Pharmacy Department, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Bankstown, New South Wales, Australia
,
Melissa T. Baysari
1   Faculty of Medicine and Health, Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
› Institutsangaben Funding This work is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Partnership Grant: APP1134824) in partnership with eHealth NSW and eHealth QLD (Department of Health and Aged Care, Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council).
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Drug–drug interaction (DDI) alerts in electronic systems are frequently implemented to minimize the occurrence of preventable DDIs. While prescribers recognize the potential benefits of DDI alerts, a large proportion are overridden by users.

Objectives This study aimed to explore and compare prescribers' and managers' perspectives of DDI alerts.

Methods A qualitative descriptive study was conducted across six hospitals in Australia with end users (prescribers who receive alerts) [n = 14] and managers [n = 20] (senior staff in roles relevant to alert system implementation and management). End users were asked to reflect on alert usefulness, benefits, risks, and impacts. Managers were asked what they thought of alerts, and about any feedback they had received from frontline clinicians. Key themes were extracted via an inductive content analysis approach and deductively mapped to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM3). Comparisons of the views held toward the alerts were made between the two participant groups.

Results End users predominantly reflected on the utility of the DDI alert system (i.e. how useful it was to their role), less on how easy the system was to use, and mainly focused on the negative consequences of alerts. Managers believed the benefits of DDI alerts are primarily experienced by junior doctors. While end users suggested that alerts should be tailored to the patient's clinical scenario, managers called for DDI alerts to be tailored to the prescriber (seniority and specialty).

Conclusion Interviews with end users and managers uncovered a number of perceived benefits and limitations of DDI alerts, primarily related to the system's usefulness. While largely consistent, some perceptions were different between end users and managers, particularly in the types of benefits, and how they conceptualized potential tailoring to improve DDI alerts. Our findings point to a need for user participation in the development, deployment, and improvement of alerts to promote consideration and effectiveness of DDI alerts.

Keywords

clinical decision support - drug interactions - perceptions - quality improvement

Authors' Contributions

M.T.B., L.L., J.W., S.N.H., and R.O.D. conceived the study. M.T.B. and K.Z.S.M. assisted with recruitment and M.T.B., B.A.V.D., T.L., and K.S. undertook data collection and analysis. All authors provided input to the study design, and interpretation of findings. All authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.


Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

Ethics approval was obtained from one of the hospital's Human Research Ethics Committee (February 18, 2021/4.07) and site approval obtained from all participating sites. The study was conducted in accordance with the aforementioned committee's parameters.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. Juni 2024

Angenommen: 21. November 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. April 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Laatikainen O, Miettunen J, Sneck S, Lehtiniemi H, Tenhunen O, Turpeinen M. The prevalence of medication-related adverse events in inpatients-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2017; 73 (12) 1539-1549
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Glassman PA, Belperio P, Lanto A. et al. The utility of adding retrospective medication profiling to computerized provider order entry in an ambulatory care population. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (04) 424-431
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Egger SS, Drewe J, Schlienger RG. Potential drug-drug interactions in the medication of medical patients at hospital discharge. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 58 (11) 773-778
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Van De Sijpe G, Quintens C, Walgraeve K. et al. Overall performance of a drug-drug interaction clinical decision support system: quantitative evaluation and end-user survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022; 22 (01) 48
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Edrees H, Amato MG, Wong A, Seger DL, Bates DW. High-priority drug-drug interaction clinical decision support overrides in a newly implemented commercial computerized provider order-entry system: override appropriateness and adverse drug events. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (06) 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Baysari MT, Dort BAV, Zheng WY. et al. Prescribers' reported acceptance and use of drug-drug interaction alerts: an Australian survey. Health Informatics J 2022; 28 (02) 14 604582221100678
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Baysari MT, Tariq A, Day RO, Westbrook JI. Alert override as a habitual behavior - a new perspective on a persistent problem. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 409-412
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Embi PJ, Leonard AC. Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (e1): e145-e148
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (02) 138-147
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Taylor LK, Tamblyn R. Reasons for physician non-adherence to electronic drug alerts. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 (Pt 2): 1101-1105
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Magnus D, Rodgers S, Avery AJ. GPs' views on computerized drug interaction alerts: questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27 (05) 377-382
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Van Dort BA, Zheng WY, Baysari MT. Prescriber perceptions of medication-related computerized decision support systems in hospitals: a synthesis of qualitative research. Int J Med Inform 2019; 129: 285-295
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Missiakos O, Baysari MT, Day RO. Identifying effective computerized strategies to prevent drug-drug interactions in hospital: a user-centered approach. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (08) 595-600
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Humphrey KE, Mirica M, Phansalkar S, Ozonoff A, Harper MB. Clinician perceptions of timing and presentation of drug-drug interaction alerts. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 487-496
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Van Dort BA, Zheng WY, Sundar V, Baysari MT. Optimizing clinical decision support alerts in electronic medical records: a systematic review of reported strategies adopted by hospitals. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (01) 177-183
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hatton RC, Rosenberg AF, Morris CT, McKelvey RP, Lewis JR. Evaluation of contraindicated drug-drug interaction alerts in a hospital setting. Ann Pharmacother 2011; 45 (03) 297-308
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Parke C, Santiago E, Zussy B, Klipa D. Reduction of clinical support warnings through recategorization of severity levels. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2015; 72 (02) 144-148
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Simpao AF, Ahumada LM, Desai BR. et al. Optimization of drug-drug interaction alert rules in a pediatric hospital's electronic health record system using a visual analytics dashboard. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (02) 361-369
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Zenziper Y, Kurnik D, Markovits N. et al. Implementation of a clinical decision support system for computerized drug prescription entries in a large tertiary care hospital. Isr Med Assoc J 2014; 16 (05) 289-294
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Bhakta SB, Colavecchia AC, Haines L, Varkey D, Garey KW. A systematic approach to optimize electronic health record medication alerts in a health system. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2019; 76 (08) 530-536
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Helmons PJ, Suijkerbuijk BO, Nannan Panday PV, Kosterink JG. Drug-drug interaction checking assisted by clinical decision support: a return on investment analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (04) 764-772
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Chaparro JD, Hussain C, Lee JA, Hehmeyer J, Nguyen M, Hoffman J. Reducing interruptive alert burden using quality improvement methodology. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (01) 46-58
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Bauer J, Busse M, Kopetzky T, Seggewies C, Fromm MF, Dörje F. Interprofessional evaluation of a medication clinical decision support system prior to implementation. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (03) 637-649
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Bakker T, Klopotowska JE, de Keizer NF. et al; SIMPLIFY Study Group. Improving medication safety in the intensive care by identifying relevant drug-drug interactions - results of a multicenter Delphi study. J Crit Care 2020; 57: 134-140
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Bakker T, Klopotowska JE, Dongelmans DA. et al; SIMPLIFY study group. The effect of computerised decision support alerts tailored to intensive care on the administration of high-risk drug combinations, and their monitoring: a cluster randomised stepped-wedge trial. Lancet 2024; 403 (10425): 439-449
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Knight AM, Maygers J, Foltz KA, John IS, Yeh HC, Brotman DJ. The effect of eliminating intermediate severity drug-drug interaction alerts on overall medication alert burden and acceptance rate. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 927-934
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Horn J, Ueng S. The effect of patient-specific drug-drug interaction alerting on the frequency of alerts: a pilot study. Ann Pharmacother 2019; 53 (11) 1087-1092
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Shah SN, Seger DL, Fiskio JM, Horn JR, Bates DW. Comparison of medication alerts from two commercial applications in the USA. Drug Saf 2021; 44 (06) 661-668
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Dolin RH, Shenvi E, Alvarez C. et al. PillHarmonics: an orchestrated pharmacogenetics medication clinical decision support service. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (02) 378-387
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Erku D, Khatri R, Endalamaw A. et al. Digital health interventions to improve access to and quality of primary health care services: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20 (19) 6854
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 (06) 349-357
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Page N, Baysari MT, Westbrook JI. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interruptive medication prescribing alerts in hospital CPOE systems to change prescriber behavior and improve patient safety. Int J Med Inform 2017; 105: 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Baysari MT, Van Dort BA, Stanceski K. et al. Is evidence of effectiveness a driver for clinical decision support selection? A qualitative descriptive study of senior hospital staff. Int J Qual Health Care 2023; 35 (01) mzad004
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Klaic M, Galea MP. Using the technology acceptance model to identify factors that predict likelihood to adopt tele-neurorehabilitation. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 580832
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Ebnehoseini Z, Tara M, Tabesh H, Dindar FH, Hasibian S. Understanding key factors affecting on hospital electronic health record (EHR) adoption. J Family Med Prim Care 2020; 9 (08) 4348-4352
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 2008; 39 (02) 273-315
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 2000; 11 (04) 342-365
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Biady Y, Lee T, Pham L. et al. Factors influencing health care professionals' perceptions of frequent drug–drug interaction alerts. ACI Open 2024; 08 (01) e25-e32
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Luna DR, Rizzato Lede DA, Otero CM, Risk MR, González Bernaldo de Quirós F. User-centered design improves the usability of drug-drug interaction alerts: experimental comparison of interfaces. J Biomed Inform 2017; 66: 204-213
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Russ AL, Chen S, Melton BL. et al. A novel design for drug-drug interaction alerts improves prescribing efficiency. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2015; 41 (09) 396-405
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Zachariah M, Phansalkar S, Seidling HM. et al. Development and preliminary evidence for the validity of an instrument assessing implementation of human-factors principles in medication-related decision-support systems–I-MeDeSA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (Suppl. 01) i62-i72
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Zheng WY, Van Dort B, Marcilly R. et al. A tool for evaluating medication alerting systems: development and initial assessment. JMIR Med Inform 2021; 9 (07) e24022
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Daniels CC, Burlison JD, Baker DK. et al. Optimizing drug-drug interaction alerts using a multidimensional approach. Pediatrics 2019; 143 (03) e20174111
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Chou E, Boyce RD, Balkan B. et al. Designing and evaluating contextualized drug-drug interaction algorithms. JAMIA Open 2021; 4 (01) ooab023
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Muylle KM, Gentens K, Dupont AG, Cornu P. Evaluation of an optimized context-aware clinical decision support system for drug-drug interaction screening. Int J Med Inform 2021; 148: 104393
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Cornu P, Steurbaut S, Gentens K, Van de Velde R, Dupont AG. Pilot evaluation of an optimized context-specific drug-drug interaction alerting system: a controlled pre-post study. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (09) 617-629
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Duke JD, Bolchini D. A successful model and visual design for creating context-aware drug-drug interaction alerts. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 339-348
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Samaras A, Bekiaridou A, Papazoglou AS. et al; CardioMining Study Group. Artificial intelligence-based mining of electronic health record data to accelerate the digital transformation of the national cardiovascular ecosystem: design protocol of the CardioMining study. BMJ Open 2023; 13 (04) e068698
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Koplan KE, Brush AD, Packer MS, Zhang F, Senese MD, Simon SR. “Stealth” alerts to improve warfarin monitoring when initiating interacting medications. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (12) 1666-1673
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Hussain MI, Reynolds TL, Zheng K. Medication safety alert fatigue may be reduced via interaction design and clinical role tailoring: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (10) 1141-1149
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Jones PD, Seoane L, Deichmann Jr. R, Kantrow C. Differences and similarities in the practice of medicine between Australia and the United States of America: challenges and opportunities for the university of Queensland and the Ochsner clinical school. Ochsner J 2011; 11 (03) 253-258
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Barki H, Hartwick J. Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. Manage Inf Syst Q 1994; 18 (01) 59-82
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Hartwick J, Barki H. Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Manage Sci 1994; 40 (04) 440-465
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 54 Bano M, Zowghi D. A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Inf Softw Technol 2015; 58: 148-169
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 55 Venkatesh V, Davis FD. Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 2000; 46 (02) 186-204
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 56 Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research,. Addison-Wesley;; 1975
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 57 Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 1991; 2 (03) 192-222
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 58 Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Inf Syst Res 1995; 6 (02) 118-143
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 59 Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. Manage Inf Syst Q 1995; 19 (02) 189-211
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 60 Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q: Manag Inform Syst. 2003; 27 (03) 425-478
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 61 Webster J, Martocchio JJ. Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Q: Manag Inform Syst. 1992; 16 (02) 201-224
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar