ArticleApplied clinical informatics2014
Evaluation of a user guidance reminder to improve the quality of electronic prescription messages.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of interventions to improve inpatient hospital documentation within electronic health records: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Challenges and solutions in implementing electronic prescribing in Iran's health system: a qualitative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- The use of narrative electronic prescribing instructions in pharmacoepidemiology: A scoping review for the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2021Article
- Twice-daily versus once-daily lisinopril and losartan for hypertension: Real-world effectiveness and safety.PloS one · 2020Article
- Evaluation of interventions to improve electronic health record documentation within the inpatient setting: a protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrescribers' inappropriate use of the free-text Notes field in new electronic prescriptions can create confusion and workflow disruptions at receiving pharmacies that often necessitates contact with prescribers for clarification. The inclusion of inappropriate patient direction (Sig) information in the Notes field is particularly problematic.
objectiveWe evaluated the effect of a targeted watermark, an embedded overlay, reminder statement in the Notes field of an EHR-based e-prescribing application on the incidence of inappropriate patient directions (Sig) in the Notes field.
methodsE-prescriptions issued by the same exact cohort of 97 prescribers were collected over three time periods: baseline, three months after implementation of the reminder, and 15 months post implementation. Three certified and experienced pharmacy technicians independently reviewed all e-prescriptions for inappropriate Sig-related information in the Notes field. A physician reviewer served as the final adjudicator for e-prescriptions where the three reviewers could not reach a consensus. ANOVA and post hoc Tukey HSD tests were performed on group comparisons where statistical significance was evaluated at p<0.05.
resultsThe incidence of inappropriate Sig-related information in the Notes field decreased from a baseline of 2.8% to 1.8% three months post-implementation and remained stable after 15 months. In addition, prescribers' use of the Notes decreased by 22% after 3 months and had stabilized at 18.7% below baseline after 15 months.
conclusionInsertion of a targeted watermark reminder statement in the Notes field of an e-prescribing application significantly reduced the incidence of inappropriate Sig-related information in Notes and decreased prescribers' use of this field.
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.