ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2014
Evaluation of pharmacy information system in teaching, private and social services Hospitals in 2011.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design, implementation, and evaluation of a CPOE system in a cancer care setting: A case study on the gastric cancer patients.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Evaluating the usability of a national health information system with heuristic method.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSupporting a therapeutic approach and medication therapy management, the pharmacy information system (PIS) acts as one of the pillars of hospital information system. This ensures that medication therapy is being supported with an optimal level of safety and quality similar to other treatments and services. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study is an applied, cross-sectional study conducted on the PIS in use in selected hospitals. The research population included all users of PIS. The research sample is the same as the research population. The data collection instrument was the self-designed checklist developed from the guidelines of the American Society of Health System Pharmacists, Australia pharmaceutical Society and Therapeutic guidelines of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association. The checklist validity was assessed by research supervisors and PIS users and pharmacists.
findingsThe findings of this study were revealed that regarding the degree of meeting the standards given in the guidelines issued by the Society of Pharmacists, the highest rank in observing input standards belonged to Social Services hospitals with a mean score of 32.75. Although teaching hospitals gained the highest score both in process standards with a mean score of 29.15 and output standards with a mean score of 43.95, the private hospitals had the lowest mean score of 23.32, 17.78, 24.25 in input, process and output standards, respectively.
conclusionBased on the findings, it can be claimed that the studied hospitals had a minimal compliance with the input, output and processing standards related to the PIS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.