Enabling Medication Management Through Health Information Technology

Discussion

The literature of MMIT presents challenges. It is diffused across multiple disciplines, and much of it is descriptive in nature. We also found that although studies with strong methods exist, they are not uniformly dispersed across phases of medication management, people, settings, or health IT applications.

The literature would be stronger if standardized definitions of issues like medication errors, adverse effects, MMIT applications, and sustainability were implemented. The evidence of effectiveness can be made stronger with directed evaluation funding. With direction the evaluations could be encouragement for studies to be done appropriately and not just on small budgets or by the system developers. Training in research skills as part of informatics training may also enhance the evidence on the effectiveness of MMIT. We noted problems in study methods and often found studies that lacked sufficient numbers for valid statistical analyses and assessment of implications.

Despite the challenges in the evidentiary base for MMIT, it is a vital, vibrant, and a proven component of health and health informatics—at least for improving the processes of care that include patient safety. Qualitative studies have provided data on expectations, hopes, changes in how care is delivered, and the need for deep understanding of the effects of MMIT applications in planning for and implementing them. We are much wiser for bringing this literature together into one resource. Moving forward and with the advent of new systems, greater emphasis on eHealth to improve health care and health care delivery, and the move to more patient-centered care, it is an exciting time for development and integration of MMIT applications.

Return to Contents 

Full Report

The executive summary is part of the following document:

McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Handler SM, Dolovich LR, Holbrook AM, O'Reilly D, Tamblyn R, Hemens BJ, Basu R, Troyan S, Roshanov PS, Archer NP, Raina P. Enabling Medication Management Through Health Information Technology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 201 (Prepared by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract HHSA 290-2007-10060-I). AHRQ Publication No. 11-E008-EF. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2011.

For More Copies

For more copies of Enabling Medication Management Through Health Information Technology: Executive Summary No. 201 (AHRQ Pub. No. 11-E008-1), please call the AHRQ Clearinghouse at 1-800-358-9295 or E-mail ahrqpubs@ahrq.hhs.gov.

Return to Contents 

References

1. Bell DS, Cretin S, Marken RS, et al. A conceptual framework for evaluating outpatient electronic prescribing systems based on their functional capabilities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11(1):6070.

2. Shekelle PG, Morton SC, Keeler EB. Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 132 (Prepared by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0003). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, April 2006. AHRQ Publication No. 06-E006.

3. Jimison H, Gorman P, Woods S, et al. Barriers and Drivers of Health Information Technology Use for the Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Underserved. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 175 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024). Rockville,MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, November 2008. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E004.

4. Gibbons MC, Wilson RF, Samal L, et al. Impact of Consumer Health Informatics Applications. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 188 (Prepared by Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10061-I). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, October 2009. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-E019.

5. Hersh WR, Hickam DH, Severance SM, et al. Telemedicine for the Medicare Population: Update. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 131 (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0024). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, February 2006. AHRQ Publication No. 06-E007.

6. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Enabling Health Care Decision Making through the Use of Health Information Technology (Health IT). Systematic Review Protocol. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, March 2010.

7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Enabling Patient-Centered Care through Health Information Technology (Health IT). Systematic Review Protocol. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, March 2010.

8. Lobach D. Enabling Health Care Decision Making through the Use of Health Information Technology (Health IT). Expected release date May/June 2011. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, March 2010.

9. Humphreys JS, Wakerman J, Wells R. What do we mean by sustainable rual health services? Implications for rural health research. Aust J Rural Health 2006;14(1):335.

10. Verhagen A, de Vet H, de Bi R, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51(12):123541.

11. Perras C, Jacobs P, Boucher M, et al. Technologies to reduce errors in dispensing and administration of medication in hospitals: Clinical and economic analyses. Technology Report Number 121. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.

12. Morriss F, Abramowitz P, Nelson S, et al. Effectiveness of a barcode medication administration system in reducing preventable adverse drug events in a neonatal intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study. J Pediatr 2009;154(3):3638.

13. Grasso BC, Genest R, Yung K, et al. Reducing errors in discharge medication lists by using personal digital assistants. Psychiatr Serv 2002;53(10):13256.

14. Poole D, Chainakul J, Pearson M, et al. JHQ 177 medication reconciliation: a necessity in promoting a safe hospital discharge. J Healthc Qual 2006;28(3):1219.

15. Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005;116(6):150612.

16. Keene A, Ashton L, Shure D, et al. Mortality before and after initiation of a computerized physician order entry system in a critically ill pediatric population. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2007;8(3):26871.

17. Gesteland PH, Nebeker JR, Gardner RM. These are the technologies that try men's souls: common-sense health information technology. Pediatrics 2006;117(1):21617.

18. Lesprit P, Duong T, Girou E, et al. Impact of a computer-generated alert system prompting review of antibiotic use in hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;63(5):105863.

19. Van Ast JF, Talmon JL, Renier WO, et al. Development of diagnostic reference frames for seizures. Part 2: are seizure descriptions discriminative? Int J Med Inf 2003;70(2-3):293300.

20. Weir C, Lincoln M, Roscoe D, et al. Dimensions associated with successful implementation of a hospital based integrated order entry system. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1994:6537.

21. Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, et al. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature: since 2005, patient-focused applications have proliferated, but data on their costs and benefits remains sparse. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009 MarApr;28(2): Supplement 1: w282293:Supplement-93.