E-prescribing in Community-Based Practices: Successes and Barriers (Text Version) Slide presentation from the AHRQ 2008 conference showcasing Agency research and projects. Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2008 Annual ConferenceOn September 8, 2008, Michael A. Fischer, M.D., M.S., made this presentation at the 2008 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (540 KB; Plugin Software Help).Slide 1E-prescribing in Community-Based Practices: Successes and BarriersMichael A. Fischer, M.D., M.S.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacoeconomicsDepartment of MedicineBrigham and Women's HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolSlide 2Research teamCo-authors:Ritu Agarwal, PhD, University of MarylandCorey Angst, PhD, Notre DameCate Desroches, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)BCBSMA [Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts]:Megan BellAdrienne Cyrulik, MPHTufts Health Plan:Julie NewtonZix Corporation:Angus MacDonaldScott PlunkettSlide 3BackgroundPromise of e-prescribing: Improved safety.Value.Efficiency.Slow spread to community-based practices: Uncertain what drives successful e-prescribing uptake in community setting.Slide 4Study settingeRx Collaborative: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; Neighborhood Health Plan; Tufts Health Plan; DrFirst; Zix CorporationInitiated by BCBSMA and Tufts Health Plan.Partnered with ZixCorp, providing physicians with PocketScript system.Program began in early 2004.Slide 5Prior studies—erx adoptionFigure 2: E-prescribing rate by monthMonthAcute MedicationsAll MedicationsMonth 125%15%Month 226%15%Month 327%16%Month 430%18%Month 532%19%Month 634%20%Month 735%21%Month 835%20%Month 936%22%Month 1039%24%Month 1140%25%Month 1242%26%Source: Fischer et al, JGIM 2008.Slide 6Prior studies—e-rx and costsThis graph shows the percent tier 1 by month relative to first e-prescription for Control prescribers; Intervention prescribers, non-e-prescriptions; and Intervention prescribers, e-prescriptions.MonthControl prescribersIntervention prescribers,e-prescriptionsIntervention prescribers,non-e-prescribersMonth -653.8% 55%Month -554% 55.2%Month -454.1% 55.8%Month -354.8% 55.9%Month -255% 56.5%Month -155.6% 56.7%Month 155.8%57.6% (began this month)61.8%Month 256%58%61%Month 356.5%59%61.8%Month 456.7%58.9%61%Month 557%58.9%61%Month 657.2%58.9%60.2%Month 757.3%59.2%61.4%Month 857.5%59.6%62.5%Month 957.7%60%62.3%Month 1057.8%60%61.9%Month 1157.8%61%63%Source: Fischer et al, Arch Int Med 2008, in press.Slide 7Prior studies—e-rx and safetyMost alerts over-ridden by prescribers (Weingart et al. Arch Int Med 2003)Reviews suggest reduced ADEs, but inadequate studies in outpatient setting (Ammenwerth et al. JAMIA 2008)Slide 8Study questionsWhat is the experience of community-based practices that adopt electronic prescribing systems?What barriers remain to successful adoption and use of e-prescribing?Where has e-prescribing succeeded; has it created new problems?Slide 9Study designFocus groups:Conducted spring 2008.Prescribers and office staff: Internal medicine, pediatrics, FP, cardiology, nephrology.Both current and former users: High/low volume, abandoned, transitioned to electronic medical record (EMR).Interviews:Detailed discussions with prescribers.Slide 10FindingsE-prescribing positives.Ongoing challenges/barriers.Slide 11E-prescribing positivesPrescription security.Financial gain.Office efficiency.Medication safety.Insurance issues.Communication with pharmacy.Slide 12E-prescribing positives (continued)Prescription security:Less people touch the actual prescription.Patients cannot lose the prescription.Patients cannot tamper with prescription.Slide 13E-prescribing positives (continued)Financial gain:Direct incentives a major factor: Initial adoption subsidized.Later incentives for ongoing use.Potential gains in patient satisfaction: "If we can reduce wait times, we've succeeded."Unclear of ROI in terms of practice billing.Slide 14E-prescribing positives (continued)Office efficiency:Major changes in practice workflow: Less calls for front-end staff.Refills and other non-critical medication issues can be batched for MD review.Frees staff time and attention: Less interruption of work.Pharmacy information is updated and accurate.Perceived ROI, but hard to quantify.Slide 15E-prescribing positives (continued)Medication:Quick review of patient medication history: Available round the clock, out of office.Alerts about drug-drug interactions: Office staff appreciated reminders.Physicians less certain, many alerts dismissed.Ability to identify patients on a specific drug: Especially useful for recalls: "I can identify all the patients on..."Slide 16E-prescribing positives (continued)Insurance issues:Can see if a drug is not covered: Avoids callbacks, increased patient satisfaction.Ability to identify patients on a specific drug: Also useful for prescribing incentive programs.Slide 17E-prescribing positives (continued)Communication with pharmacy:Timely flow of information.Ability to send specific messages. E.g.: "No more refills until patient sees doctor."Slide 18Ongoing challenges/barriers:Learning curve.Usability.Reliability.Safety concerns.Patient resistance.Data security.Slide 19Ongoing challenges/barriers (continued)Learning curve:New skill: "not covered in medical school."Difficult for older prescribers.High burden on champions/superusers.New tasks for some personnel—source of resistance.Lack of support."Locked in" with initial vendor choice.Slide 20Ongoing challenges/barriers (continued)Usability:Types of devices/interfaces.Problems with some pharmacies.Inability to transmit to PBMs.Reliability:Connectivity/network problems, loss of productivity.Resistance for sick patients or weekends.Slide 21Ongoing challenges/barriers (continued)Safety concerns:Selecting wrong patient.Selecting wrong drug (Cipro/Cialis).Some doses/formulations not in system.Drug alerts not perceived as helpful: "ignore almost all."Some alerts may be handled by non-prescribers in the process of queuing.Slide 22Ongoing challenges/barriers (continued)Patient resistance:Wanting something in hand (older pts).Bad experiences with failed transmissions.Inability to transmit to PBMs.Data security:Concern about whether transmitting patient data creates liability exposure.Concern about prescribing data and tracking/profiling.Who owns the data: cost of changing.Slide 23Summary observations:Overall positive experience—almost none would "turn back the clock."Successes: office efficiency, pharmacy communication, formulary information, prescription security.Barriers/challenges: learning curve, reliability, questionable safety impact.Slide 24Summary observations (continued)Benefits more apparent in larger practices with high volume of chronic mediations.More opportunities to streamline workflow.Prescription volume/management is seen as a major issue at baseline.Possible financial gains easier to perceive.Slide 25Next stepsOn-site visits to observe system use, validate focus group observations.Large-sample survey to test generalizability of initial findings.Quantitative studies of e-rx impact on cost, safety, adherence, clinical outcomes. Current as of February 2009 Internet Citation: E-prescribing in Community-Based Practices: Successes and Barriers (Text Version). February 2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/events/conference/2008/Fischer.html