Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25670756›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a hospital electronic medication management system.

Johanna I Westbrook, Elena Gospodarevskaya, Ling Li, Katrina L Richardson, David Roffe, Maureen Heywood, Richard O Day, Nicholas Graves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Validation of a score to identify inpatients at risk of a drug-related problem during a 4-year period.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2018
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Johanna I WestbrookProfessor and Director, Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 2109 johanna.westbrook@mq.edu.au.
Elena GospodarevskayaSenior Research Fellow, Deakin Health Economics, Deakin Population Health Strategic Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, 3125.
Ling LiBiostatistician, Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 2109.
Katrina L RichardsoneMedicines Management Pharmacist, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia, 2010.
David RoffeChief Information Officer, St Vincent's Health Australia, Sydney, Australia, 2010.
Maureen HeywoodeMedicines Management Pharmacist, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia, 2010.
Richard O DayDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital, and UNSW Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2052.
Nicholas GravesProfessor, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 4059.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of a hospital electronic medication management system (eMMS).

methodsWe compared costs and benefits of paper-based prescribing with a commercial eMMS (CSC MedChart) on one cardiology ward in a major 326-bed teaching hospital, assuming a 15-year time horizon and a health system perspective. The eMMS implementation and operating costs were obtained from the study site. We used data on eMMS effectiveness in reducing potential adverse drug events (ADEs), and potential ADEs intercepted, based on review of 1 202 patient charts before (n = 801) and after (n = 401) eMMS. These were combined with published estimates of actual ADEs and their costs.

resultsThe rate of potential ADEs following eMMS fell from 0.17 per admission to 0.05; a reduction of 71%. The annualized eMMS implementation, maintenance, and operating costs for the cardiology ward were A$61 741 (US$55 296). The estimated reduction in ADEs post eMMS was approximately 80 actual ADEs per year. The reduced costs associated with these ADEs were more than sufficient to offset the costs of the eMMS. Estimated savings resulting from eMMS implementation were A$63-66 (US$56-59) per admission (A$97 740-$102 000 per annum for this ward). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated results were robust when both eMMS effectiveness and costs of actual ADEs were varied substantially.

conclusionThe eMMS within this setting was more effective and less expensive than paper-based prescribing. Comparison with the few previous full economic evaluations available suggests a marked improvement in the cost-effectiveness of eMMS, largely driven by increased effectiveness of contemporary eMMs in reducing medication errors.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHospital CostsHumansMedical Order Entry SystemsMedication Systems, HospitalModels, EconomicNew South Walesadverse drug eventscost-effectivenessCPOEdecision analytic model hospitalelectronic medication management systemelectronic prescribinginpatient caremedication error

Identifiers

PMID25670756
PMCPMC4482274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.