Exploring the Impact of the Digital Health Drug Repository in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Central repositories of drug‐related information have the potential to reduce adverse events and inappropriate prescribing by enabling clinicians to access relevant details at the point of care. In 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Health developed the Digital Health Drug Repository (DHDR) to support clinicians in developing a best possible medication history (BPMH). We conducted a formative evaluation of the DHDR to understand (1) the perceived clinical value DHDR; and (2) the barriers and enablers to adoption and meaningful use. A multimethod approach including semistructured interviews and an online clinician survey. Interview data were thematically analyzed, and survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Clinicians included physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and allied health providers who were eligible to use the DHDR (irrespective of use). Thirty‐three interviews were conducted. Most participants were female (60%, n = 20), worked in acute care settings (46%, n = 15), and self‐reported using the DHDR > 4 times (78%, n = 26). Participants were satisfied with the DHDR as source of secondary information, but the absence of specific data such as medication instructions and prescribed medications that were not dispensed limited its utility. Poor integration with point‐of‐care systems further limited potential, with no perceived impact on the development of a BPMH. Of the 167 survey participants, the majority were female (82%, n = 137) and worked in acute care settings (58%, n = 90). Only 24% (n = 40) were actively using DHDR. DHDR users were neutral in their perceptions of the utility of DHDR (mean scores ranged 4.11‐4.76 on a 7‐point adjectival scale). Of the 76% (n = 127) who were not using the DHDR, many found access to medication information very important (mean scores ranged 6.22‐5.97). Reasons for not using DHDR included cumbersome process to gain access to DHDR and the perception that the repository was incomplete. Findings from this evaluation suggest that there is potential untapped value if a digital centralized medication repository is operationalized to align with clinician needs. Specifically, (1) integration with point‐of‐care systems; (2) comprehensive clinical data; and (3) quick and streamlined onboarding processes would facilitate meaningful use. Digital drug repositories can be a valuable tool for clinicians when determining a BPMH for a patient. Access to comprehensive medication information across the health care system can improve efficiency and reduce medical errors. These applied insights can inform the operationalization and implementation of system‐wide strategies to improve their uptake and impact. Ontario Ministry of Health Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».