3 ms·
I worked at Epic years ago, but even then it was able to warn about drug interactions. But those warnings were configured on a site-to-site basis; your normal d
by jpfed 8y ago
I worked at Epic years ago, but even then it was able to warn about drug interactions. But those warnings were configured on a site-to-site basis; your normal doctor's hospital (or practice) may not have configured drug interaction checks.
- Herodotus38 8y agoNot only that, but if the software at the Urgent Care is that old, it may be raising false flags on things that are no longer considered clinically relevant and just present a hassle for the provider to click through.
- whitexn--g28h 8y agoThe age of the software would not reflect the quality of the data. I'm positive that these alerts are updated with new drugs and contradiction logic continuosly.
- Herodotus38 8y agoYou are right in that the age wouldn't necessarily correlate with quality, but I can speak from first hand knowledge about the inertia that different EMRs bring. A lot of these drug interactions are mild precautions or the evidence changes with time. Ideally what is supposed to happen is a multidisciplinary committee reviews the latest evidence and continuously updates the interactions. What often happens though is that there isn't enough 'oomph' to override a previously established notification so inertia wins. It's often not until a major EMR upgrade where things get more closely looked at and some of the less important flags/notifications get weeded out out. Definitely true that new major interactions get added all the time and usually in a timely fashion. As you can also imagine there is a medico-legal aspect of removing a previous flag, so often it's easier to just leave it and make the provider do an extra unneeded click.