Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31164486›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019

When order sets do not align with clinician workflow: assessing practice patterns in the electronic health record.

Ron C Li, Jason K Wang, Christopher Sharp, Jonathan H Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Ron C LiCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA ronl@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4310-7137
Jason K WangCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Christopher SharpStanford Health Care, Stanford, California, USA.
Jonathan H ChenCenter for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

Data-Mining Clinical Decision Support from Electronic Health RecordsK01ES026837 · NIEHS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHEN, JONATHAN H. · 2015 to 2019
$893k
NIEHS NIH HHS K01 ES026837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrder sets are widely used tools in the electronic health record (EHR) for improving healthcare quality. However, there is limited insight into how well they facilitate clinician workflow. We assessed four indicators based on order set usage patterns in the EHR that reflect potential misalignment between order set design and clinician workflow needs.

methodsWe used data from the EHR on all orders of medication, laboratory, imaging and blood product items at an academic hospital and an itemset mining approach to extract orders that frequently co-occurred with order set use. We identified the following four indicators: infrequent ordering of order set items, rapid retraction of medication orders from order sets, additional a la carte ordering of items not included in order sets and a la carte ordering of items despite being listed in the order set.

resultsThere was significant variability in workflow alignment across the 11 762 order set items used in the 77 421 inpatient encounters from 2014 to 2017. The median ordering rate was 4.1% (IQR 0.6%-18%) and median medication retraction rate was 4% (IQR 2%-10%). 143 (5%) medications were significantly less likely while 68 (3%) were significantly more likely to be retracted than if the same medication was ordered a la carte. 214 (39%) order sets were associated with least one additional item frequently ordered a la carte and 243 (45%) order sets contained at least one item that was instead more often ordered a la carte.

conclusionOrder sets often do not align with what clinicians need at the point of care. Quantitative insights from EHRs may inform how order sets can be optimised to facilitate clinician workflow.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMedical Order Entry SystemsPractice Patterns, Physicians'WorkflowFocus GroupsHospitals, TeachingHumansOrganizational Case Studiescomputerizeddecision support, computerizedinformation technologymedication safetynear miss

Identifiers

PMID31164486
PMCPMC6868292

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.