ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024
Interprofessional Evaluation of a Medication Clinical Decision Support System Prior to Implementation.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- German Federal Association of Hospital Pharmacists national survey of clinical pharmacy services in Germany, 2024.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2026Article
- Patient Participation in Monitoring Potential Adverse Drug Events.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Observational
- Facilitators and Barriers to Uptake of Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts: Perspectives of Australian End Users and Managers.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- The Elements of Style for Interruptive Electronic Health Record Alerts.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Clinical-pharmaceutical assessment of medication CDSS alerts: content appropriateness and patient relevance in clinical practice.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Iterative Development of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Enhance Naloxone Coprescribing.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputerized physician order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are widespread due to increasing digitalization of hospitals. They can be associated with reduced medication errors and improved patient safety, but also with well-known risks (e.g., overalerting, nonadoption).
objectivesTherefore, we aimed to evaluate a commonly used CDSS containing Medication-Safety-Validators (e.g., drug-drug interactions), which can be locally activated or deactivated, to identify limitations and thereby potentially optimize the use of the CDSS in clinical routine.
methodsWithin the implementation process of Meona (commercial CPOE/CDSS) at a German University hospital, we conducted an interprofessional evaluation of the CDSS and its included Medication-Safety-Validators following a defined algorithm: (1) general evaluation, (2) systematic technical and content-related validation, (3) decision of activation or deactivation, and possibly (4) choosing the activation mode (interruptive or passive). We completed the in-depth evaluation for exemplarily chosen Medication-Safety-Validators. Moreover, we performed a survey among 12 German University hospitals using Meona to compare their configurations.
resultsBased on the evaluation, we deactivated 3 of 10 Medication-Safety-Validators due to technical or content-related limitations. For the seven activated Medication-Safety-Validators, we chose the interruptive option ["PUSH-(&PULL)-modus"] four times (4/7), and a new, on-demand option ["only-PULL-modus"] three times (3/7). The site-specific configuration (activation or deactivation) differed across all participating hospitals in the survey and led to varying medication safety alerts for identical patient cases.
conclusionAn interprofessional evaluation of CPOE and CDSS prior to implementation in clinical routine is crucial to detect limitations. This can contribute to a sustainable utilization and thereby possibly increase medication safety.
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.