Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 218–219 | Cite as

Computer system to support medication reviews: a good but not new concept

  • Ivan Karl BindoffEmail author
  • Gregory Mark Peterson
  • Colin Curtain
Letter to the Editor

In their recent article, de Wit and colleagues put forward a solid argument for the use of clinical decision support systems to support medication reviews for the elderly [1]. They point out that medication reviews are routinely performed, and they have positive effects in terms of reducing medication-related problems. They also rightly note that the quality of the findings and recommendations contained within these medication reviews are only going to be as good as the knowledge and skills of the professionals performing them. They then argue that a clinical decision support system using clinical rules that combine the available pharmacy, clinical and laboratory data may be able to improve the delivery of medication reviews. This we also accept.

The authors then assert that doing this would be a “new approach”, and outline a simple plan for how they intend to develop this innovative system. In their conclusions, they state “In our opinion the development of a system, which is able to...

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Medication Review Clinical Decision Support Clinical Decision Support System Clinical Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    de Wit H, Gonzalvo C, Hurkens K, Mulder W, Janknegt R, Verhey F, et al. Development of a computer system to support medication reviews in nursing homes. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35:668–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bindoff I, Stafford A, Peterson G, Kang B, Tenni P. The potential for intelligent decision support systems to improve the quality and consistency of medication reviews. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:452–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bindoff I, Kang BH, Ling T, Tenni P, Peterson G. Applying MCRDR to a multidisciplinary domain. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 2007; Gold Coast, Australia: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curtain C, Bindoff I, Westbury J, Peterson G. Validation of decision support software for identification of drug-related problems in home medicines reviews. In: Proceedings of the 11th National Conference of Emerging Researchers in Ageing; 2012 Nov 19–Nov 20; Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O’Mahony D. STOPP (screening tool of older person’s prescriptions) and START (screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;46:72–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bachant J, McDermott J. R1 Revisited: four years in the trenches. Readings from the AI magazine. Am Assoc Artif Intell. 1984;5:177–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Karl Bindoff
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory Mark Peterson
    • 1
  • Colin Curtain
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations