ArticleJMIR research protocols2016
Using an Electronic Decision Support Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Polypharmacy and Optimize Medicines: Rationale and Methods.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supporting prescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy in primary care (SPPiRE): a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol and pilot.Implementation science : IS · 2017Trial
- Clinical decision support systems for polypharmacy optimization in older patients: a narrative review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Molecular and clinical epidemiology of carbapenem resistantThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- A whole of population retrospective observational study on the rates of polypharmacy in New Zealand 2014 to 2018 Polypharmacy in New Zealand: What is the current status?Health science reports · 2021Article
- Use of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support System in Primary Care to Assess Inappropriate Polypharmacy in Young Seniors With Multimorbidity: Observational, Descriptive, Cross-sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Optimizing Antihypertensive Medication Classification in Electronic Health Record-Based Data: Classification System Development and Methodological Comparison.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Using EMR-enabled computerized decision support systems to reduce prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolypharmacy and inappropriate continuation of medicines can lead to a significant risk of adverse drug events and drug interactions with patient harm and escalating health care costs as a result. Thorough review of patients' medications focusing on the need for each drug can reduce the potential for harm. Limitations in performing effective medicine reviews in practice include consultation time constraints and funding for pharmacy services. We will aim to overcome these problems by designing an automatic electronic decision support tool (the medicines optimization/review and evaluation (MORE) module) that is embedded in general practice electronic records systems. The tool will focus on medicines optimization and reducing polypharmacy to aid prescribers in reviewing medicines and improve patient outcomes.
objectiveThe objectives of this study are: (1) to develop an electronic decision support tool to assist prescribers in performing clinical medication reviews with a particular focus on patients experiencing multimorbidity and polypharmacy, and (2) evaluate and assess the use of the electronic decision support tool, providing pilot data on its usefulness in supporting prescribers during consultations with patients.
methodsThe first three study phases involve development of clinical rules outlining clinical interventions and the creation and validation of the MORE decision support tool. Phase four is a community-based, single-blind, prospective, 6-month controlled trial involving two interventions and two control general practices, matched for practice demographics. We will be measuring the number of times prescribers engage with the tool, total number of interventions suggested by the tool, and total number of times prescribers change medicines in response to recommendations. There will also be prospective follow-up of patients in the intervention group to examine whether changes to medications are upheld, and to determine the number of hospitalizations or emergency department visits within 6 months of a medicine intervention. Comparisons between control and intervention practices will measure the changes in proportions of patients with polypharmacy and inappropriately prescribed medicines before and after the introduction of the electronic decision support tool, proportions of patients receiving appropriate treatment in each practice, and changed, maintained, or improved health status, hospitalizations, and deaths in the study year. Initiation rates of inappropriately prescribed medicines will be measured as a secondary outcome. As well as external assessment of the extent of use and application of the tool, prescribers will receive monthly practice progress reports detailing the proportion of their patients experiencing polypharmacy and taking inappropriately prescribed medicines identified for review.
resultsPhase one has now been completed and the decision support tool is under development. Final data analysis is expected to be available in December 2016.
conclusionsThis study will establish whether the MORE decision support tool stands up to real world conditions and promotes changes in prescribing practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.