Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635100›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

The impact of a computerized physician order entry system implementation on 20 different criteria of medication documentation-a before-and-after study.

Viktoria Jungreithmayr, Andreas D Meid, Implementation Team, Walter E Haefeli, Hanna M Seidling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Artificial intelligence in the field of pharmacy practice: A literature review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors.

Viktoria JungreithmayrDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas D MeidDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Implementation Team
Walter E HaefeliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hanna M SeidlingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. hanna.seidling@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe medication process is complex and error-prone. To avoid medication errors, a medication order should fulfil certain criteria, such as good readability and comprehensiveness. In this context, a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system can be helpful. This study aims to investigate the distinct effects on the quality of prescription documentation of a CPOE system implemented on general wards in a large tertiary care hospital.

methodsIn a retrospective analysis, the prescriptions of two groups of 160 patients each were evaluated, with data collected before and after the introduction of a CPOE system. According to nationally available recommendations on prescription documentation, it was assessed whether each prescription fulfilled the established 20 criteria for a safe, complete, and actionable prescription. The resulting fulfilment scores (prescription-Fscores) were compared between the pre-implementation and the post-implementation group and a multivariable analysis was performed to identify the effects of further covariates, i.e., the prescription category, the ward, and the number of concurrently prescribed drugs. Additionally, the fulfilment of the 20 criteria was assessed at an individual criterion-level (denoted criteria-Fscores).

resultsThe overall mean prescription-Fscore increased from 57.4% ± 12.0% (n = 1850 prescriptions) before to 89.8% ± 7.2% (n = 1592 prescriptions) after the implementation (p < 0.001). At the level of individual criteria, criteria-Fscores significantly improved in most criteria (n = 14), with 6 criteria reaching a total score of 100% after CPOE implementation. Four criteria showed no statistically significant difference and in two criteria, criteria-Fscores deteriorated significantly. A multivariable analysis confirmed the large impact of the CPOE implementation on prescription-Fscores which was consistent when adjusting for the confounding potential of further covariates.

conclusionsWhile the quality of prescription documentation generally increases with implementation of a CPOE system, certain criteria are difficult to fulfil even with the help of a CPOE system. This highlights the need to accompany a CPOE implementation with a thorough evaluation that can provide important information on possible improvements of the software, training needs of prescribers, or the necessity of modifying the underlying clinical processes.

Indexed as

Medical Order Entry SystemsDocumentationHospitalsHumansMedication ErrorsRetrospective StudiesComputerized physician order entry systemDocumentation errorsEvaluation resultsMedication prescription

Identifiers

PMID34635100
PMCPMC8504043

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.