Strategies prescribers and pharmacists use to identify and mitigate adverse drug reactions in inpatient and outpatient care: a cognitive task analysis at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Nguyen KA, Militello LG, Ifeachor A, Arthur KJ, Glassman PA, Zillich AJ, Weiner M, Russ-Jara AL. Strategies prescribers and pharmacists use to identify and mitigate adverse drug reactions in inpatient and outpatient care: a cognitive task analysis at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Center. BMJ open. 2022 Feb 21; 12(2):e052401.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 11-214 – Improving Medication Safety through Human Factors and Informatics Research
• IIR 16-297 – A Human Factors Investigation of Health Information Exchange: Tools to Support Providers' Coordination of Medications

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To develop a descriptive model of the cognitive processes used to identify and resolve adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the perspective of healthcare providers in order to inform future informatics efforts SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient care at a tertiary care US Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists who report ADRs. OUTCOMES: Descriptive model and emerging themes from interviews. RESULTS: We conducted critical decision method interviews with 10 physicians and 10 pharmacists. No nurse practitioners submitted ADR incidents. We generated a descriptive model of an ADR decision-making process and analysed emerging themes, categorised into four stages: detection of potential ADR, investigation of the problem's cause, risk/benefit consideration, and plan, action and follow-up. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) relied on several confirmatory or disconfirmatory cues to detect and investigate potential ADRs. Evaluating risks and benefits of related medications played an essential role in HCPs' pursuits of solutions CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an illustrative model of how HCPs detect problems and make decisions regarding ADRs. The design of supporting technology for potential ADR problems should align with HCPs' real-world cognitive strategies, to assist fully in detecting and preventing ADRs for patients.