Search

This study assesses the effects of competing demands, such as poor health habits or new medical problems, on health-habit counseling during a primary care visit.We surveyed a consecutive sample of 1,259 patients visiting primary care clinicians at an academic VA medical center. Before the visit, patients reported their health status, health habits, and sociodemographics; immediately after the visit, patients reported reasons for the visit and whether they had been counseled about specific health habits. We scored visit acuity ranging from visits for unscheduled walk-in care or new medical problems to scheduled visits for check-ups or old problems. We defined counseling "triggers" as clinical indications for counseling about particular health habits (e.g., smoking). We developed a logistic model predicting primary care provider counseling during a visit.Over two-thirds of patients (68.9%) received some health habit counseling. Controlling for other independent variables, patients with more triggers were more likely to report being counseled. Counseling rates went up as visit acuity went down; patients with the lowest visit acuity having 67% greater odds of being counseled than patients with the highest visit acuity.Physicians set priorities for health-habit counseling during a visit based on patients' health habit problems or triggers; whether the visit is scheduled or walk-in; and whether the patient has new or acute problems. Future research about primary care performance of health habit counseling should account for these patient and visit characteristics, and prevention-oriented health care organizations should ensure access to scheduled "check-up" visits.

Objective Understanding provider perceptions of and experiences with order entry and order checks (drug alerts) in an electronic prescribing system may help improve medication safety technology. Design Cross-sectional, national survey of Veterans Administration physicians practicing in various specialties. Measurement Thirty-five question instrument was divided into 4 content domains. Response options included dichotomous, numeric, multiple choices, and Likert-like scales. Statistical methods included logistic regression. Results The adjusted response rate was 1543 of 3588 (43%). Almost all providers (90%) felt that the VA electronic prescribing system, including its order checks, improved prescribing safety to some degree. Most respondents (72%) reported that they always or almost always document outside medications in a clinic note, although only 44% always or almost always entered outside medications in the non-VA medication data field. Most physicians (88%) who encountered serious allergic or adverse drug reactions reported either notifying a pharmacist or entering the information in the allergies/adverse reactions field. Generalists and physicians with higher numbers of prescriptions were more likely to enter relevant data into the electronic medical record (or notify a pharmacist, in the case of adverse reactions). In addition, 48% of providers described critical drug-drug interaction alerts as very useful; medical specialists found these less useful, whereas surgical specialists found these more useful when compared with generalists. Limitations Survey was conducted within a single healthcare system. Conclusion Computerized provider order entry and related order checks are perceived to improve prescribing safety; however, provider entry of some relevant information into the appropriate electronic fields may not be optimal.

Clinicians' perceptions about decision support systems may impact the effectiveness of these technologies.To explore clinicians' baseline knowledge of common drug interactions and experiences with automated drug alerts within a provider order entry system as a means to better understand the potential benefits and barriers to using this technology.Cross-sectional survey.The study population comprised 263 clinicians practicing within a Southern California Veterans Affairs health care system that used VA's Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Response rate was 64%.A 67-item survey (19 questions) was developed to elicit information including: (1) computer use for patient-related activities; (2) recognition of drug interactions; and (3) benefits and barriers to using automated drug alerts.Clinicians correctly categorized 44% (range 11-64%) of all drug-drug pairs, 53% of interacting combinations, and 54% of contraindicated pairs. Providers also correctly categorized 55% (range 24-87%) of 11 drug-disease pairs and 62% of interacting combinations, and 53% of contraindicated pairs. Nearly 90% of clinicians thought drug alerts would be helpful to identify interactions yet 55% of clinicians perceived that the most significant barrier to utilizing existing alerts was poor signal to noise ratio, meaning too many nonrelevant warnings.Automated drug interaction alerts have the potential to dramatically increase clinicians' recognition of selected drug interactions. However, perceived poor specificity of drug alerts may be an important obstacle to efficient utilization of information and may impede the ability of such alerts to improve patient safety.