ArticlePloS one2016
Pharmacist-Physician Communications in a Highly Computerised Hospital: Sign-Off and Action of Electronic Review Messages.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Resolution rate of prescribing errors after advice from a specialised hospital pharmacist or a substitute hospital pharmacist: a retrospective cross-sectional study.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2026Article
- A National Modified Delphi Consensus Process to Prioritize Experiences and Interventions for Antipsychotic Medication Deprescribing Among Adult Patients With Critical Illness.Critical care explorations · 2022Article
- Using electronic patient records: defining learning outcomes for undergraduate education.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSome hospital Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems support interprofessional communication. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of pharmacist-physician messages sent via a CPOE system.
methodData from the year 2012 were captured from a large university teaching hospital CPOE database on: 1) review messages assigned by pharmacists; 2) details of the prescription on which the messages were assigned; and 3) details of any changes made to the prescription following a review message being assigned. Data were coded for temporal, message and prescription factors. Messages were analysed to investigate: 1) whether they were signed-off; and 2) the time taken. Messages that requested a measurable action were further analysed to investigate: 1) whether they were actioned as requested; and 2) the time taken. We conducted a multivariable analysis using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for the effects of multiple factors simultaneously, and to adjust for any potential correlation between outcomes for repeated review messages on the same prescription. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), with p<0.05 considered significant.
resultsPharmacists assigned 36,245 review messages to prescriptions over the 12 months, 34,506 of which were coded for analysis after exclusions. Nearly half of messages (46.6%) were signed-off and 65.5% of these were signed-off in ≤ 48 hours. Of the 9,991 further analysed for action, 35.8% led to an action as requested by the pharmacist and just over half of these (57.0%) were actioned in ≤ 24 hours. Factors predictive of an action were the time since the prescription was generated (p<0.001), pharmacist grade (p<0.001), presence of a high-risk medicine (p<0.001), messages relating to reconciliation (p = 0.004), theme of communication (p<0.001), speciality, (p<0.001), category of medicine (p<0.001), and regularity of the prescription (p<0.001).
conclusionIn this study we observed a lower rate of sign-off and action than we might have expected, suggesting uni-directional communication via the CPOE system may not be optimal. An established pharmacist-physician collaborative working relationship is likely to influence the prioritisation and response to messages, since a more desirable outcome was observed in settings and with grades of pharmacists where this was more likely. Designing systems that can facilitate collaborative communication may be more effective in practice.
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.