This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: M2313v1 14/4/424    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Glassman, P. A. Articles by Lee, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Glassman, P. A. Articles by Lee, M.

The Utility of Adding Retrospective Medication Profiling to Computerized Provider Order Entry in an Ambulatory Care Population

^a VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
^b VA HSR and D Center of Excellence for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior, Sepulveda, California
^c David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California
^d VA Center for Medication Safety, Hines, Illinois
^e VA Public Health Strategic Healthcare Group Center for Quality Management, Palo Alto, California
^g Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado.

^_* Correspondence and reprints: Peter A. Glassman, MBBS, MSc., Division of General Internal Medicine (111G), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, West Los Angeles Campus, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073 (Email: Peter.Glassman{at}va.gov).

Received for publication: 10/25/06; accepted for publication: 04/02/07.

Background: We assessed whether medication safety improved when a medication profiling program was added to a computerized provider order entry system.

Design: Between June 2001 and January 2002 we profiled outpatients with potential prescribing errors using computerized retrospective drug utilization software. We focused primarily on drug interactions. Patients were randomly assigned either to Provider Feedback or to Usual Care. Subsequent adverse drug event (ADE) incidence and other outcomes, including ADE preventability and severity, occurring up to 1 year following the last profiling date were evaluated retrospectively by a pharmacist blinded to patient assignment.

Measurements: Data were abstracted using a study-designed instrument. An ADE was defined by an Adverse Drug Reaction Probability scale score of 1 or more. Statistical analyses included negative binomial regression for comparing ADE incidence.

Results: Of 913 patients in the analytic sample, 371 patients (41%) had one or more ADEs. Incidence, by individual, was not significantly different between Usual Care and Provider Feedback groups (37% vs. 45%; p = 0.06; Coefficient, 0.19; 95% CI: –0.008, 0.390). ADE severity was also similar. For example, 51% of ADEs in the Usual Care and 58% in the Provider Feedback groups involved symptoms that were not serious (95% CI for the difference, –15%, 2%). Finally, ADE preventability did not differ. For example, 16% in the Usual Care group and 17% in the Provider Feedback group had an associated warning (95% CI for the difference, –7 to 5%; p = 0.79).

Conclusion: Medications safety did not improve with the addition of a medication profiling program to an electronic prescribing system.