Comparison of Medication Alerts from Two Commercial Applications in the USA

Sonam N. Shah (), Diane L. Seger, Julie M. Fiskio, John R. Horn and David W. Bates
Additional contact information
Sonam N. Shah: Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Diane L. Seger: Mass General Brigham
Julie M. Fiskio: Brigham and Women’s Hospital
John R. Horn: University of Washington Medicine Pharmacy Services
David W. Bates: Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Drug Safety, 2021, vol. 44, issue 6, No 5, 668 pages

Abstract: Abstract Introduction Medication organizations across the USA have adopted electronic health records, and one of the most anticipated benefits of these was improved medication safety, but alert fatigue has been a major issue. Objective We compared the appropriateness of medication-related clinical decision support alerts triggered by two commercial applications: EPIC and Seegnal’s platform. Methods This was a retrospective comparison of two commercial applications. We provided Seegnal with deidentified inpatient, outpatient, and inpatient genetic electronic medical record (EMR)-extracted datasets for 657, 2731, and 413 patients, respectively. Seegnal then provided the alerts that would have triggered, which we compared with those triggered by EPIC in clinical care. A random sample of the alerts triggered were reviewed for appropriateness, and the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. We also reviewed all the inpatient and outpatient charts for patients within our cohort who were receiving ten or more concomitant medications with alerts we found to be appropriate to assess whether any adverse events had occurred and whether Seegnal’s platform could have prevented them. Results Results from EPIC and the Seegnal platform were compared based on alert load, PPV, NPV, and potential adverse events. Overall, compared with EPIC, the Seegnal platform triggered fewer alerts in the inpatient (1697 vs. 27,540), outpatient (2341 vs. 35,134), and inpatient genetic (1493 vs. 20,975) cohorts. The Seegnal platform had higher specificity in the inpatient (99 vs. 0.3%; p

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-021-01048-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:44:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40264-021-01048-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01048-0

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().