Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25838968›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2015

Default settings of computerized physician order entry system order sets drive ordering habits.

Jordan Olson, Christopher Hollenbeak, Keri Donaldson, Thomas Abendroth, William Castellani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Using human factors methods to mitigate bias in artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effect of default order set settings on telemetry ordering.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Implementation of a new health information technology for the management of cancer chemotherapies.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Jordan OlsonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, USA.
Christopher HollenbeakDepartment of Surgery, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, PA, USA.
Keri DonaldsonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, PA, USA.
Thomas AbendrothDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, PA, USA.
William CastellaniDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems are quickly becoming ubiquitous, and groups of orders ("order sets") to allow for easy order input are a common feature. This provides a streamlined mechanism to view, modify, and place groups of related orders. This often serves as an electronic equivalent of a specialty requisition. A characteristic, of these order sets is that specific orders can be predetermined to be "preselected" or "defaulted-on" whenever the order set is used while others are "optional" or "defaulted-off" (though there is typically the option is to "deselect" defaulted-on tests in a given situation). While it seems intuitive that the defaults in an order set are often accepted, additional study is required to understand the impact of these "default" settings in an order set on ordering habits. This study set out to quantify the effect of changing the default settings of an order set.

methodsFor quality improvement purposes, order sets dealing with transfusions were recently reviewed and modified to improve monitoring of outcome. Initially, the order for posttransfusion hematocrits and platelet count had the default setting changed from "optional" to "preselected." The default settings for platelet count was later changed back to "optional," allowing for a natural experiment to study the effect of the default selections of an order set on clinician ordering habits.

resultsPosttransfusion hematocrit values were ordered for 8.3% of red cell transfusions when the default order set selection was "off" and for 57.4% of transfusions when the default selection was "preselected" (P < 0.0001). Posttransfusion platelet counts were ordered for 7.0% of platelet transfusions when the initial default order set selection was "optional," increased to 59.4% when the default was changed to "preselected" (P < 0.0001), and then decreased to 7.5% when the default selection was returned to "optional." The posttransfusion platelet count rates during the two "optional" periods: 7.0% versus 7.5% - were not statistically different (P = 0.620). DISCUSSION: Default settings in CPOE order sets can significantly influence physician selection of laboratory tests. Careful consideration by all stakeholders, including clinicians and pathologists, should be obtained when establishing default settings in order sets.

Indexed as

Default settingsorder setstest utilization

Identifiers

PMID25838968
PMCPMC4382759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.