| Title |
Electronic Pharmacopoeia: A Missed Opportunity for Safe Opioid Prescribing Information?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Toxicology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13181-013-0351-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeff Lapoint, Jeanmarie Perrone, Lewis S. Nelson |
| Abstract |
Errors in prescribing of dangerous medications, such as extended release or long acting (ER/LA) opioid forlmulations, remain an important cause of patient harm. Prescribing errors often relate to the failure to note warnings regarding contraindications and drug interactions. Many prescribers utilize electronic pharmacopoeia (EP) to improve medication ordering. The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of commonly used apps to provide accurate safety information about the boxed warning for ER/LA opioids. We evaluated a convenience sample of six popular EP apps available for the iPhone and an online reference for the presence of relevant safety warnings. We accessed the dosing information for each of six ER/LA medications and assessed for the presence of an easily identifiable indication that a boxed warning was present, even if the warning itself was not provided. The prominence of precautionary drug information presented to the user was assessed for each app. Provided information was classified based on the presence of the warning in the ordering pathway, located separately but within the prescribers view, or available in a separate screen of the drug information but non-highlighted. Each program provided a consistent level of warning information for each of the six ER/LA medications. Only 2/7 programs placed a warning in line with dosing information (level 1); 3/7 programs offered level 2 warning and 1/7 offered level 3 warning. One program made no mention of a boxed warning. Most EP apps isolate important safety warnings, and this represents a missed opportunity to improve prescribing practices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 23% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,795,800
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#554
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,448
of 220,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#19
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 220,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.