Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30744674›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Development and implementation of "Check of Medication Appropriateness" (CMA): advanced pharmacotherapy-related clinical rules to support medication surveillance.

Charlotte Quintens, Thomas De Rijdt, Tine Van Nieuwenhuyse, Steven Simoens, Willy E Peetermans, Bart Van den Bosch, Minne Casteels, Isabel Spriet

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charlotte QuintensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. charlotte.quintens@uzleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-6072-2596
Thomas De RijdtDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Tine Van NieuwenhuysePharmacy Department, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Steven SimoensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Willy E PeetermansDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Bart Van den BoschDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Minne CasteelsDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabel SprietDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve medication surveillance and provide pharmacotherapeutic support in University Hospitals Leuven, a back-office clinical service, called "Check of Medication Appropriateness" (CMA), was developed, consisting of clinical rule based screening for medication inappropriateness. The aim of this study is twofold: 1) describing the development of CMA and 2) evaluating the preliminary results, more specifically the number of clinical rule alerts, number of actions on the alerts and acceptance rate by physicians.

methodsCMA focuses on patients at risk for potentially inappropriate medication and involves the daily checking by a pharmacist of high-risk prescriptions generated by advanced clinical rules integrating patient specific characteristics with details on medication. Pharmacists' actions are performed by adding an electronic note in the patients' medical record or by contacting the physician by phone. A retrospective observational study was performed to evaluate the primary outcomes during an 18-month study period.

results39,481 clinical rule alerts were checked by pharmacists for which 2568 (7%) electronic notes were sent and 637 (1.6%) phone calls were performed. 37,782 (96%) alerts were checked within four pharmacotherapeutic categories: drug use in renal insufficiency (25%), QTc interval prolonging drugs (11%), drugs with a restricted indication or dosing (14%) and overruled very severe drug-drug interactions (50%). The emergency department was a frequently involved ward and anticoagulants are the drug class for which actions are most frequently carried out. From the 458 actions performed for the four abovementioned categories, 69% were accepted by physicians.

conclusionsThese results demonstrate the added value of CMA to support medication surveillance in synergy with already integrated basic clinical decision support and bedside clinical pharmacy. Otherwise, the study also highlighted a number of limitations, allowing improvement of the service.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug PrescriptionsEmergency Service, HospitalMedical Order Entry SystemsPharmacy Service, HospitalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCheck of medication appropriateness (CMA)Clinical decision support (CDSS)Clinical rulesClinical validation of prescriptionsComputerized physician order entry (CPOE)Medication surveillance

Identifiers

PMID30744674
PMCPMC6371500
OpenAlexW2918348793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.