ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020
Varying rates of patient identity verification when using computerized provider order entry.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Innovations and Opportunities.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to determine rates of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) patient identity verification and when and where in the ordering process verification occurred. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-five physicians from 4 healthcare systems completed simulated patient scenarios using their respective CPOE system (Epic or Cerner). Eye movements were recorded and analyzed.
resultsAcross all participants patient id was verified significantly more often than not (62.4% vs 37.6%). Vendor A had significantly higher verification rates than not; vendor B had no difference. Participants using vendor A verified information significantly more often before signing the order than after (88.4% vs 11.6%); there was no difference in vendor B. The banner bar was the most frequent verification location. DISCUSSION: Factors such as CPOE design, physician training, and the use of a simulated methodology may be impacting verification rates.
conclusionsVerification rates vary by CPOE product, and this can have patient safety consequences.
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.