Implementation of geriatric clinical decision support in the emergency department for potentially inappropriate medications.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Gina A Elder, Kevin King, Marc Willner, Matthew J Campbell, Baruch S Fertel, Saket Saxena, Stephen Meldon
{"title":"Implementation of geriatric clinical decision support in the emergency department for potentially inappropriate medications.","authors":"Gina A Elder, Kevin King, Marc Willner, Matthew J Campbell, Baruch S Fertel, Saket Saxena, Stephen Meldon","doi":"10.1111/acem.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults in the emergency department (ED) is associated with increased risk of readmissions and adverse drug reactions. We sought to assess the impact of electronic health record (EHR)-based geriatric clinical decision support (CDS) on adherence to geriatric recommendations for targeted PIMs prescribed to older adults while in the ED and at ED discharge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a multicenter pre-post implementation cohort study comparing adherence to geriatric recommendations before and after implementation of ED geriatric CDS for patients 65 years or older for a targeted list of 12 PIMs. ED geriatric CDS consisted of custom order panels with clinical guidance for preferred alternative agents or preferred geriatric dosing if providers opted to proceed with ordering a targeted PIM; CDS was implemented for both medications ordered during the ED visit as well as outpatient prescriptions ordered at discharge. The primary outcomes were the proportions of ED orders and discharge prescriptions adherent to ED geriatric CDS recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6745 ED orders and 1440 discharge prescriptions were eligible for study inclusion. The proportion of targeted PIMs consistent with geriatric CDS recommendations was higher in the postimplementation group compared to preimplementation group for both ED orders (52% vs. 71%; difference 19%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8%-21.3%) and discharge prescriptions (0.5% vs. 31.7%; difference 31.1%, 95% CI 27.5%-34.7%). In the postimplementation period, geriatric CDS order panel utilization for targeted PIMs was 62.1% for ED orders and 36.7% for discharge prescriptions. Among orders placed through ED geriatric CDS order panels, 90% of ED orders and 80.4% of discharge prescriptions were adherent to geriatric CDS recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EHR-based CDS for older adults in the ED increased the proportion of ED orders and discharge prescriptions adherent to geriatric drug therapy recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults in the emergency department (ED) is associated with increased risk of readmissions and adverse drug reactions. We sought to assess the impact of electronic health record (EHR)-based geriatric clinical decision support (CDS) on adherence to geriatric recommendations for targeted PIMs prescribed to older adults while in the ED and at ED discharge.

Methods: We performed a multicenter pre-post implementation cohort study comparing adherence to geriatric recommendations before and after implementation of ED geriatric CDS for patients 65 years or older for a targeted list of 12 PIMs. ED geriatric CDS consisted of custom order panels with clinical guidance for preferred alternative agents or preferred geriatric dosing if providers opted to proceed with ordering a targeted PIM; CDS was implemented for both medications ordered during the ED visit as well as outpatient prescriptions ordered at discharge. The primary outcomes were the proportions of ED orders and discharge prescriptions adherent to ED geriatric CDS recommendations.

Results: A total of 6745 ED orders and 1440 discharge prescriptions were eligible for study inclusion. The proportion of targeted PIMs consistent with geriatric CDS recommendations was higher in the postimplementation group compared to preimplementation group for both ED orders (52% vs. 71%; difference 19%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8%-21.3%) and discharge prescriptions (0.5% vs. 31.7%; difference 31.1%, 95% CI 27.5%-34.7%). In the postimplementation period, geriatric CDS order panel utilization for targeted PIMs was 62.1% for ED orders and 36.7% for discharge prescriptions. Among orders placed through ED geriatric CDS order panels, 90% of ED orders and 80.4% of discharge prescriptions were adherent to geriatric CDS recommendations.

Conclusions: EHR-based CDS for older adults in the ED increased the proportion of ED orders and discharge prescriptions adherent to geriatric drug therapy recommendations.

在急诊科对可能不适当的药物实施老年临床决策支持。
目的:急诊科(ED)老年人潜在不适当药物(PIMs)的使用与再入院和药物不良反应的风险增加相关。我们试图评估基于电子健康记录(EHR)的老年临床决策支持(CDS)对老年人在急诊科和急诊科出院时遵守针对性pim的老年建议的影响。方法:我们进行了一项多中心实施前后队列研究,比较了65岁或以上患者在实施ED老年CDS之前和之后对12个目标pim的老年推荐的依从性。ED老年CDS包括定制订单面板,如果供应商选择继续订购靶向PIM,则提供首选替代药物或首选老年剂量的临床指导;CDS用于在急诊科访问期间订购的药物以及出院时订购的门诊处方。主要结果是急诊科医嘱和出院处方遵守急诊科老年CDS建议的比例。结果:共有6745张急诊科处方和1440张出院处方符合研究纳入条件。与实施前相比,实施后两组ED订单中符合老年CDS建议的针对性pim比例更高(52% vs 71%;差异19%,95%可信区间[CI] 16.8%-21.3%)和出院处方(0.5% vs. 31.7%;差异31.1%,95% CI 27.5%-34.7%)。在计划实施后,目标计划的老年CDS订单使用率为急诊科订单的62.1%和出院处方的36.7%。在通过急诊科老年CDS订单面板下达的订单中,90%的急诊科订单和80.4%的出院处方遵循了老年CDS建议。结论:针对急诊科老年人的基于ehr的CDS增加了急诊科医嘱和遵循老年药物治疗建议的出院处方的比例。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信