ArticleHealthcare informatics research2016
Pharmacy Information Systems in Teaching Hospitals: A Multi-dimensional Evaluation Study.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2016. 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.
- Health information technology in ambulatory care in a developing country.Electronic physician · 2018Article
- The performance implications of pharmacy information system at the university teaching hospitals of Shiraz, Iran: Cluster approach.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn hospitals, the pharmacy information system (PIS) is usually a sub-system of the hospital information system (HIS). The PIS supports the distribution and management of drugs, shows drug and medical device inventory, and facilitates preparing needed reports. In this study, pharmacy information systems implemented in general teaching hospitals affiliated to medical universities in Tehran (Iran) were evaluated using a multi-dimensional tool.
methodsThis was an evaluation study conducted in 2015. To collect data, a checklist was developed by reviewing the relevant literature; this checklist included both general and specific criteria to evaluate pharmacy information systems. The checklist was then validated by medical informatics experts and pharmacists. The sample of the study included five PIS in general-teaching hospitals affiliated to three medical universities in Tehran (Iran). Data were collected using the checklist and through observing the systems. The findings were presented as tables.
resultsFive PIS were evaluated in the five general-teaching hospitals that had the highest bed numbers. The findings showed that the evaluated pharmacy information systems lacked some important general and specific criteria. Among the general evaluation criteria, it was found that only two of the PIS studied were capable of restricting repeated attempts made for unauthorized access to the systems. With respect to the specific evaluation criteria, no attention was paid to the patient safety aspect.
conclusionsThe PIS studied were mainly designed to support financial tasks; little attention was paid to clinical and patient safety features.
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.