Person: Schiff, Gordon
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
First Name
Name
Search Results
Publication A Prescription for Improving Drug Formulary Decision Making
(Public Library of Science, 2012) Schiff, Gordon; Galanter, William L.; Duhig, Jay; Koronkowski, Michael J.; Lodolce, Amy E.; Pontikes, Pam; Busker, John; Touchette, Daniel; Walton, Surrey; Lambert, Bruce L.Gordon Schiff and colleagues present a new tool and checklist to help formularies make decisions about drug inclusion and to guide rational drug use.
Publication Indication Alerts Intercept Drug Name Confusion Errors during Computerized Entry of Medication Orders
(Public Library of Science, 2014) Galanter, William L.; Bryson, Michelle L.; Falck, Suzanne; Rosenfield, Rachel; Laragh, Marci; Shrestha, Neeha; Schiff, Gordon; Lambert, Bruce L.Background: Confusion between similar drug names is a common cause of potentially harmful medication errors. Interventions to prevent these errors at the point of prescribing have had limited success. The purpose of this study is to measure whether indication alerts at the time of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) can intercept drug name confusion errors. Methods and Findings: A retrospective observational study of alerts provided to prescribers in a public, tertiary hospital and ambulatory practice with medication orders placed using CPOE. Consecutive patients seen from April 2006 through February 2012 were eligible if a clinician received an indication alert during ordering. A total of 54,499 unique patients were included. The computerized decision support system prompted prescribers to enter indications when certain medications were ordered without a coded indication in the electronic problem list. Alerts required prescribers either to ignore them by clicking OK, to place a problem in the problem list, or to cancel the order. Main outcome was the proportion of indication alerts resulting in the interception of drug name confusion errors. Error interception was determined using an algorithm to identify instances in which an alert triggered, the initial medication order was not completed, and the same prescriber ordered a similar-sounding medication on the same patient within 5 minutes. Similarity was defined using standard text similarity measures. Two clinicians performed chart review of all cases to determine whether the first, non-completed medication order had a documented or non-documented, plausible indication for use. If either reviewer found a plausible indication, the case was not considered an error. We analyzed 127,458 alerts and identified 176 intercepted drug name confusion errors, an interception rate of 0.14±.01%. Conclusions: Indication alerts intercepted 1.4 drug name confusion errors per 1000 alerts. Institutions with CPOE should consider using indication prompts to intercept drug name confusion errors.
Publication Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records: Experiences From the Field and Future Opportunities
(JMIR Publications Inc., 2015-09-18) Slight, Sarah P; Berner, Eta S; Galanter, William L.; Huff, Stanley; Lambert, Bruce L.; Lannon, Carole; Lehmann, Christoph U; McCourt, Brian J; McNamara, Michael; Menachemi, Nir; Payne, Thomas H; Spooner, S Andrew; Schiff, Gordon; Wang, Tracy Y; Akincigil, Ayse; Crystal, Stephen; Fortmann, Stephen P; Vandermeer, Meredith L; Bates, DavidBackground With the aim of improving health care processes through health information technology (HIT), the US government has promulgated requirements for “meaningful use” (MU) of electronic health records (EHRs) as a condition for providers receiving financial incentives for the adoption and use of these systems. Considerable uncertainty remains about the impact of these requirements on the effective application of EHR systems.
Objective The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-sponsored Centers for Education and Research in Therapeutics (CERTs) critically examined the impact of the MU policy relating to the use of medications and jointly developed recommendations to help inform future HIT policy.
Methods We gathered perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders (N=35) who had experience with MU requirements, including academicians, practitioners, and policy makers from different health care organizations including and beyond the CERTs. Specific issues and recommendations were discussed and agreed on as a group.
Results Stakeholders’ knowledge and experiences from implementing MU requirements fell into 6 domains: (1) accuracy of medication lists and medication reconciliation, (2) problem list accuracy and the shift in HIT priorities, (3) accuracy of allergy lists and allergy-related standards development, (4) support of safer and effective prescribing for children, (5) considerations for rural communities, and (6) general issues with achieving MU. Standards are needed to better facilitate the exchange of data elements between health care settings. Several organizations felt that their preoccupation with fulfilling MU requirements stifled innovation. Greater emphasis should be placed on local HIT configurations that better address population health care needs.
Conclusions Although MU has stimulated adoption of EHRs, its effects on quality and safety remain uncertain. Stakeholders felt that MU requirements should be more flexible and recognize that integrated models may achieve information-sharing goals in alternate ways. Future certification rules and requirements should enhance EHR functionalities critical for safer prescribing of medications in children.