Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun 15;5(2):e15.
doi: 10.2196/medinform.6226.

Applying STOPP Guidelines in Primary Care Through Electronic Medical Record Decision Support: Randomized Control Trial Highlighting the Importance of Data Quality

Affiliations

Applying STOPP Guidelines in Primary Care Through Electronic Medical Record Decision Support: Randomized Control Trial Highlighting the Importance of Data Quality

Morgan Price et al. JMIR Med Inform. .

Abstract

Background: Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (PIPs) are a common cause of morbidity, particularly in the elderly.

Objective: We sought to understand how the Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions (STOPP) prescribing criteria, implemented in a routinely used primary care Electronic Medical Record (EMR), could impact PIP rates in community (non-academic) primary care practices.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-method, pragmatic, cluster, randomized control trial in research naïve primary care practices. Phase 1: In the randomized controlled trial, 40 fully automated STOPP rules were implemented as EMR alerts during a 16-week intervention period. The control group did not receive the 40 STOPP rules (but received other alerts). Participants were recruited through the OSCAR EMR user group mailing list and in person at user group meetings. Results were assessed by querying EMR data PIPs. EMR data quality probes were included. Phase 2: physicians were invited to participate in 1-hour semi-structured interviews to discuss the results.

Results: In the EMR, 40 STOPP rules were successfully implemented. Phase 1: A total of 28 physicians from 8 practices were recruited (16 in intervention and 12 in control groups). The calculated PIP rate was 2.6% (138/5308) (control) and 4.11% (768/18,668) (intervention) at baseline. No change in PIPs was observed through the intervention (P=.80). Data quality probes generally showed low use of problem list and medication list. Phase 2: A total of 5 physicians participated. All the participants felt that they were aware of the alerts but commented on workflow and presentation challenges.

Conclusions: The calculated PIP rate was markedly less than the expected rate found in literature (2.6% and 4.0% vs 20% in literature). Data quality probes highlighted issues related to completeness of data in areas of the EMR used for PIP reporting and by the decision support such as problem and medication lists. Users also highlighted areas for better integration of STOPP guidelines with prescribing workflows. Many of the STOPP criteria can be implemented in EMRs using simple logic. However, data quality in EMRs continues to be a challenge and was a limiting step in the effectiveness of the decision support in this study. This is important as decision makers continue to fund implementation and adoption of EMRs with the expectation of the use of advanced tools (such as decision support) without ongoing review of data quality and improvement.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02130895; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02130895 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qyFigSYT).

Keywords: clinical decision support; data quality; electronic medical records; electronic prescribing; randomized control trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Wireframe of the CDS alerts in the EMR. (A) on the right is the panel that lists patient specific alerts. From that panel, users can click a title and get (B), the detail of the alert that pops up when clicked.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT figure. 28 physicians in 8 clinics were recruited into the study. 1 clinic declined to participate during recruitment. No clinics or physicians were lost to follow up during the trial.

References

    1. Weingart SN, Toth M, Sands DZ, Aronson MD, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Nov 24;163(21):2625–31. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.21.2625. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Am Med Assoc. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200–5. - PubMed
    1. Shah SGS, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):131–7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462307051677. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, Strom BL. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. J Am Med Assoc. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1197–203. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1197. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, Etchells E, Ghali WA, Hébert P, Majumdar SR, O'Beirne M, Palacios-Derflingher L, Reid RJ, Sheps S, Tamblyn R. The Canadian Adverse Events study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ. 2004 May 25;170(11):1678–86. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15159366 - PMC - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources