ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2018
Quality and Variability of Patient Directions in Electronic Prescriptions in the Ambulatory Care Setting.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approaches for extracting daily dosage from free-text prescription signatures in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a comparative study.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- E-prescribing and medication safety in community settings: A rapid scoping review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Implementation outcomes of the Structured and Codified SIG format in electronic prescription directions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Establishing Trust in Pharmaceutical Data with an Independent Verification and Validation Methodology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Article
- 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
- Statin Dosing Instructions, Medication Adherence, and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: a Cohort Study of Incident Statin Users.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prescriber's directions to the patient (Sig) are one of the most quality-sensitive components of a prescription order. Owing to their free-text format, the Sig data that are transmitted in electronic prescriptions (e-prescriptions) have the potential to produce interpretation challenges at receiving pharmacies that may threaten patient safety and also negatively affect medication labeling and patient counseling. Ensuring that all data transmitted in the e-prescription are complete and unambiguous is essential for minimizing disruptions in workflow at prescribers' offices and receiving pharmacies and optimizing the safety and effectiveness of patient care.
objectivesTo (a) assess the quality and variability of free-text Sig strings in ambulatory e-prescriptions and (b) propose best-practice recommendations to improve the use of this quality-sensitive field.
methodsA retrospective qualitative analysis was performed on a nationally representative sample of 25,000 e-prescriptions issued by 22,152 community-based prescribers across the United States using 501 electronic health records (EHRs) or e-prescribing software applications. The content of Sig text strings in e-prescriptions was classified according to a Sig classification scheme developed with guidance from an expert advisory panel. The Sig text strings were also analyzed for quality-related events (QREs). For purposes of this analysis, QREs were defined as Sig text content that could impair accurate and unambiguous interpretation by staff at receiving pharmacies.
resultsA total of 3,797 unique Sig concepts were identified in the 25,000 Sig text strings analyzed; more than 50% of all Sigs could be categorized into 25 unique Sig concepts. Even Sig strings that expressed apparently simple and straightforward concepts displayed substantial variability; for example, the sample contained 832 permutations of words and phrases used to convey the Sig concept of "Take 1 tablet by mouth once daily." Approximately 10% of Sigs contained QREs that could pose patient safety risks or workflow disruptions that could necessitate pharmacist callbacks to prescribers for clarification or other manual interventions.
conclusionsThe quality of free-text patient directions in e-prescriptions can vary dramatically. However, more than half of all patient directions sent in the ambulatory setting can be categorized into only 25 Sig concepts. This suggests an immediate, practical opportunity to improve patient safety and workflow efficiency for both prescribers and pharmacies. Recommendations include implementing enhancements to Sig creation tools in e-prescribing and EHR software applications, adoption of the Structured and Codified Sig format supported by the current national e-prescribing standard, and improved usability testing and end-user training for generating complete and unambiguous patient directions. Such quality improvements are essential for optimizing the safety and effectiveness of patient care as well as for minimizing workflow disruptions to both prescribers and pharmacies. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Yang, Ward-Charlerie, Dhavle, and Green are employed by Surescripts. Rupp reported receiving consulting fees from Surescripts during the conduct of this study. No other disclosures were reported. The content in this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Surescripts and Midwestern University or any of the affiliated institutions of the authors. Study concept and design were contributed by all the authors. Yang and Ward-Charlerie collected the data, and data interpretion was performed by Yang, Ward-Charlerie and Dhavle. The manuscript was primarily written by Yang, along with Dhavle and Green, and revised by Yang, Dhavle, Rupp, and Green.
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.