Assessing the accuracy of a computerized decision support system for digoxin dosing in primary care: an observational study

被引:4
作者
Kroese, WLG
Avery, AJ
Savelyich, BSP
Brown, NS
Schers, H
Howard, R
Hippisley-Cox, J
Horsfield, P
机构
[1] Catholic Univ Nijmegen, UMC Nijmegen, Dept Family Med, NL-6500 HC Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Nottingham, Sch Med, Queens Med Ctr, Sch Community Hlth Sci,Div Primary Care, Nottingham, England
[3] Queens Med Ctr, Dept Clin Chem, Nottingham NG7 2UH, England
[4] Hucknall Hlth Ctr, Nottingham Primary Care Res Partnership, Nottingham, England
关键词
computerized decision support; digoxin; prescribing; primary care; validation;
D O I
10.1111/j.1365-2710.2005.00650.x
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Background: This study was carried out as part of a European Union funded project (PharmDIS-e+), to develop and evaluate software aimed at assisting physicians with drug dosing. A drug that causes particular problems with drug dosing in primary care is digoxin because of its narrow therapeutic range and low therapeutic index. Objectives: To determine (i) accuracy of the PharmDIS-e+ software for predicting serum digoxin levels in patients who are taking this drug regularly; (ii) whether there are statistically significant differences between predicted digoxin levels and those measured by a laboratory and (iii) whether there are differences between doses prescribed by general practitioners and those suggested by the program. Methods: We needed 45 patients to have 95% Power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean serum digoxin concentration was within 10% of the mean predicted digoxin concentration. Patients were recruited from two general practices and had been taking digoxin for at least 4 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, low adherence to digoxin and use of other medications known to interact to a clinically important extent with digoxin. Results: Forty-five patients were recruited. There was a correlation of 0.65 between measured and predicted digoxin concentrations (P < 0.001). The mean difference was 0.12 mu g/L (SD 0.26; 95% CI 0.04, 0.19, P = 0.005). Forty-seven per cent of the patients were prescribed the same dose as recommended by the software, 44% were prescribed a higher dose and 9% a lower dose than recommended. Conclusion: PharmDIS-e+ software was able to predict serum digoxin levels with acceptable accuracy in most patients.
引用
收藏
页码:279 / 283
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Avery AJ, 2002, BRIT J GEN PRACT, V52, pS17
[2]   Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals [J].
Bates, DW .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7237) :788-791
[3]   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEDICATION ERRORS AND ADVERSE DRUG EVENTS [J].
BATES, DW ;
BOYLE, DL ;
VLIET, MVV ;
SCHNEIDER, J ;
LEAPE, L .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1995, 10 (04) :199-205
[4]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[5]   Is there a role for computerized decision support for drug dosing in general practice? A questionnaire survey [J].
Franke, L ;
Avery, AJ ;
Groom, L ;
Horsfield, P .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2000, 25 (05) :373-377
[6]   Digoxin in the management of cardiovascular disorders [J].
Gheorghiade, M ;
Adams, KF ;
Colucci, WS .
CIRCULATION, 2004, 109 (24) :2959-2964
[7]   Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting [J].
Gurwitz, JH ;
Field, TS ;
Harrold, LR ;
Rothschild, J ;
Debellis, K ;
Seger, AC ;
Cadoret, C ;
Garber, L ;
Kelleher, M ;
Bates, DW .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 289 (09) :1107-1116
[8]  
HANSTEN PD, 2003, HANSTEN HORNS DRUG I
[9]   Information technology and medication safety: what is the benefit? [J].
Kaushal, R ;
Bates, DW .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2002, 11 (03) :261-265
[10]   Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study [J].
Nightingale, PG ;
Adu, D ;
Richards, NT ;
Peters, M .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7237) :750-753