Bringing medication prescribing out of the dark: Time for full disclosure

Indication documentation and indication-based prescribing within electronic prescribing systems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations, documentation of indication on prescriptions and inpatient medication orders is not routinely practised. There has been a recent systematic review of indication documentation for antimicrobials, but not for interventions relating to indication documentation for medication more broadly. Our aims were to 1) identify, describe and synthesise the literature relating to effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving indication documentation and/or indication-based prescribing in both primary and secondary healthcare; 2) synthesise participant perspectives to identify barriers and facilitators to these interventions; and 3) make recommendations for both practice and research.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase and CINAHL using two search concepts: electronic prescribing systems, and indication documentation and/or indication-based prescribing. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies were included; outcome measures and results were extracted to produce a narrative synthesis. Quality appraisal by two independent reviewers was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

We identified 21 studies evaluating interventions to aid indication documentation. Indication documentation was either via free-text, selection from a list, or by use of pre-defined indication-based order sentences for individual medications. For a number of outcomes, there was a mostly positive impact, including appropriateness of the medication order (6 of 8 studies), rates of prescribing error (2/2) and some less commonly reported clinical (2/4) and workflow-related outcomes (2/3). There was a less favourable impact on accuracy of indication documentation and rates of medication use, highlighting some unintended consequences that may occur when implementing new interventions. Participant insights from prescribers and other healthcare professionals complemented quantitative study results, highlighting both facilitators and barriers to indication documentation and the associated interventions. For example, barriers included long drop-down lists and the need to use workarounds to navigate approval systems due to time or knowledge constraints. Facilitating factors included the perceived benefits of indication documentation on communication among the healthcare team and with the patient.

CONCLUSION

Indication documentation has the potential to improve appropriate prescribing and reduce prescribing errors. However, further benefits to the prescriber, multidisciplinary team and patient may only be realised by developing methods of indication documentation that integrate more efficiently with prescriber workflows.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021278495.

Incorporating 'reason for use' into the prescribing process of medication: a survey on the opinion of patients in Flanders, Belgium

Background

A longstanding debate exists about including a ‘reason for use’ on prescriptions for medication. Little is known, however, about patients’ opinions on this subject.

Methods

An internet-based questionnaire, consisting mainly of Likert scale questions, was distributed online to the general public in Belgium. Results from 1034 responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Opinions from patients toward including a ‘reason for use’ on medication prescriptions were generally positive. A clear majority of 62% increased to 74% after providing information about the possible link between indication and medication dose. A majority of the participants expressed a positive attitude regardless of the pathology involved, although sexually transmitted diseases were of greatest concern. Other important aspects differentiating the opinion positively was the transmission of this information in an electronic-only form and limiting it to the regular pharmacist excluding further use by third parties such as other pharmacies or insurance companies. Patients using multiple medicines and those frequenting the same pharmacy also had a more favorable opinion about including the reason for use. In addition, analysis of physician and pharmacist questionnaire responses, explicitly excluded from the main analysis, confirmed the known contrasting opinions in these subgroups.

Conclusions

Patients have strong support for transferring information on the ‘reason for use’ of their prescriptions to their regular pharmacy if this is done in a secure and privacy-conscious way enabling increased patient safety and improved pharmaceutical care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08596-w.

Improved antibiotic prescribing using indication-based clinical decision support in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Evaluate an indication-based clinical decision support tool to improve antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department.

METHODS

Encounters where an antibiotic was prescribed between January 2015 and October 2017 were analyzed before and after the introduction of a clinical decision support tool to improve clinicians' selection of a guideline-approved antibiotic based on clinical indication. Evaluation was conducted on a pre-defined subset of conditions that included skin and soft tissue infections, respiratory infections, and urinary infections. The primary outcome was ordering of a guideline-approved antibiotic prescription at the drug and duration of therapy level. A mixed model following a binomial distribution with a logit link was used to model the difference in proportions of guideline-approved prescriptions before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

For conditions evaluated, selection rate of a guideline-approved antibiotic for a given indication improved from 67.1% to 72.2% (P < 0.001). When duration of therapy is included as a criterion, selection of a guideline-approved antibiotic was lower and improved from 24.7% to 31.4% (P < 0.001), highlighting that duration of therapy is often missing at the time of prescribing. The most substantial improvements were seen for pneumonia and pyelonephritis with an increase from 87.9% to 97.5% and 62.8% to 82.6%, respectively. Other significant improvements were seen for abscess, cellulitis, and urinary tract infections.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prescribing can be improved both at the drug and duration of therapy level using a non-interruptive and indication based-clinical decision support approach. Future research and quality improvement efforts are needed to incorporate duration of therapy guidelines into the antibiotic prescribing process.

Comparison of a Prototype for Indications-Based Prescribing With 2 Commercial Prescribing Systems

IMPORTANCE

The indication (reason for use) for a medication is rarely included on prescriptions despite repeated recommendations to do so. One barrier has been the way existing electronic prescribing systems have been designed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, in comparison with the prescribing modules of 2 leading electronic health record prescribing systems, the efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction with a new computerized provider order entry prototype for the outpatient setting that allows clinicians to initiate prescribing using the indication.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study used usability tests requiring internal medicine physicians, residents, and physician assistants to enter prescriptions electronically, including indication, for 8 clinical scenarios. The tool order assignments were randomized and prescribers were asked to use the prototype for 4 of the scenarios and their usual system for the other 4. Time on task, number of clicks, and order details were captured. User satisfaction was measured using posttask ratings and a validated system usability scale. The study participants practiced in 2 health systems' outpatient practices. Usability tests were conducted between April and October of 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Usability (efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction) of indications-based computerized provider order entry prototype vs the electronic prescribing interface of 2 electronic health record vendors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants (17 attending physicians, 13 residents, and 2 physician assistants) used the prototype to complete 256 usability test scenarios. The mean (SD) time on task was 1.78 (1.17) minutes. For the 20 participants who used vendor 1's system, it took a mean (SD) of 3.37 (1.90) minutes to complete a prescription, and for the 12 participants using vendor 2's system, it took a mean (SD) of 2.93 (1.52) minutes. Across all scenarios, when comparing number of clicks, for those participants using the prototype and vendor 1, there was a statistically significant difference from the mean (SD) number of clicks needed (18.39 [12.62] vs 46.50 [27.29]; difference, 28.11; 95% CI, 21.47-34.75; P < .001). For those using the prototype and vendor 2, there was also a statistically significant difference in number of clicks (20.10 [11.52] vs 38.25 [19.77]; difference, 18.14; 95% CI, 11.59-24.70; P < .001). A blinded review of the order details revealed medication errors (eg, drug-allergy interactions) in 38 of 128 prescribing sessions using a vendor system vs 7 of 128 with the prototype.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Reengineering prescribing to start with the drug indication allowed indications to be captured in an easy and useful way, which may be associated with saved time and effort, reduced medication errors, and increased clinician satisfaction.