Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31640689›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2019

The impact of electronic prescribing systems on healthcare professionals' working practices in the hospital setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Soomal Mohsin-Shaikh, Dominic Furniss, Ann Blandford, Monsey McLeod, Tiantian Ma, Maedeh Y Beykloo, Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Introducing the concept of digitally smart health facilities: a vision for the future.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Lessons Learned from Natural Disasters around Digital Health Technologies and Delivering Quality Healthcare.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Perception of Health Professionals in Bangladesh toward the Digitalization of the Health Sector.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Soomal Mohsin-ShaikhUCL School of Pharmacy, Research Department of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Entrance A, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HR, UK. soomal.shaikh.11@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8204-6173
Dominic FurnissUCL Interaction Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Ann BlandfordUCL Interaction Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Monsey McLeodCentre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Tiantian MaUCL School of Pharmacy, Research Department of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Entrance A, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HR, UK.
Maedeh Y BeyklooUCL School of Pharmacy, Research Department of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Entrance A, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HR, UK.
Bryony Dean FranklinUCL School of Pharmacy, Research Department of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Entrance A, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HR, UK.

Funding

Cerner Limited n/aUCL Impact Scheme n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review was to synthesise peer-reviewed literature assessing the impact of electronic prescribing (eP) systems on the working practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the inpatient setting and identify implications for practice and research.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature databases for studies published from inception to November 2018. We included controlled, uncontrolled, observational and descriptive studies that explored the effect of eP on HCPs' working practices in an inpatient setting. Data on setting, eP system and impact on working practices were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Emergent themes were identified and subjected to narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42017075804).

resultsSearches identified 1301 titles and abstracts after duplicate removal. 171 papers underwent full-text review. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, from nine different countries. Nineteen were of commercial eP systems. There were a range of study designs; most (n = 14) adopted quantitative methods such as cross-sectional surveys, ten adopted qualitative approaches and a further one used mixed methods. Fourteen of the 25 studies were deemed to be of high quality. Four key themes were identified: communication, time taken to complete tasks, clinical workflow, and workarounds. Within each theme, study findings differed as to whether the effects of eP on HCPs' working practices were positive or negative.

conclusionThere is a lack of consensus within the literature on the impact of eP on HCPs' working practices. Future research should explore the strategies resulting in a positive impact on HCPs' working practices and learn from those that have not been successful.

Indexed as

Electronic PrescribingNarrationPractice Patterns, Physicians'Professional PracticeCross-Sectional StudiesGuideline AdherenceHumansElectronic prescribingElectronic prescribing and medication administration systemsHealthcare professionalsInpatientWorking practices

Identifiers

PMID31640689
PMCPMC6806498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.