Alerts for community pharmacist-provided medication therapy management: recommendations from a heuristic evaluation.

Snyder ME1, Jaynes H2, Gernant SA3, DiIulio J4, Militello LG4, Doucette WR5, Adeoye OA2, Russ AL2,6.

Author information

1: Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, 640 Eskenazi Ave, Indianapolis, IN, 46220, USA. snyderme@purdue.edu.
2: Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, 640 Eskenazi Ave, Indianapolis, IN, 46220, USA.
3: Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.
4: Applied Decision Science, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
5: Division of Health Services Research, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Iowa College of Pharmacy, Iowa City, IA, USA.
6: Regenstrief Institute, Inc, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Medication therapy management (MTM) is a service, most commonly provided by pharmacists, intended to identify and resolve medication therapy problems (MTPs) to enhance patient care. MTM is typically documented by the community pharmacist in an MTM vendor's web-based platform. These platforms often include integrated alerts to assist the pharmacist with assessing MTPs. In order to maximize the usability and usefulness of alerts to the end users (e.g., community pharmacists), MTM alert design should follow principles from human factors science. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to 1) evaluate the extent to which alerts for community pharmacist-delivered MTM align with established human factors principles, and 2) identify areas of opportunity and recommendations to improve MTM alert design.

METHODS:

Five categories of MTM alerts submitted by community pharmacists were evaluated: 1) indication, 2) effectiveness; 3) safety; 4) adherence; and 5) cost-containment. This heuristic evaluation was guided by the Instrument for Evaluating Human-Factors Principles in Medication-Related Decision Support Alerts (I-MeDeSA) which we adapted and contained 32 heuristics. For each MTM alert, four analysts' individual ratings were summed and a mean score on the modified I-MeDeSA computed. For each heuristic, we also computed the percent of analyst ratings indicating alignment with the heuristic. We did this for all alerts evaluated to produce an "overall" summary of analysts' ratings for a given heuristic, and we also computed this separately for each alert category. Our results focus on heuristics where ≤50% of analysts' ratings indicated the alerts aligned with the heuristic.

RESULTS:

I-MeDeSA scores across the five alert categories were similar. Heuristics pertaining to visibility and color were generally met. Opportunities for improvement across all MTM alert categories pertained to the principles of alert prioritization; text-based information; alarm philosophy; and corrective actions.

CONCLUSIONS:

MTM alerts have several opportunities for improvement related to human factors principles, resulting in MTM alert design recommendations. Enhancements to MTM alert design may increase the effectiveness of MTM delivery by community pharmacists and result in improved patient outcomes.