Observational studyJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2022
The effect of a decision support system on the incidence of prescription errors in a PICU.
Observational study in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Computerized Alerts on Prescribing and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Use of Computerized Physician Order Entry with Clinical Decision Support to Prevent Dose Errors in Pediatric Medication Orders: A Systematic Review.Paediatric drugs · 2024Pooled it
- Electronic Prescribing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of Prescribing Errors and Risk Factors.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- What characteristics of clinical decision support system implementations lead to adoption for regular use? A scoping review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
- Assessing Serious Spinal Pathology Using Bayesian Network Decision Support: Development and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Prescribing errors in children: what is the impact of a computerized physician order entry?European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Potential Drug-Related Problems in Pediatric Patients-Describing the Use of a Clinical Decision Support System at Pharmacies in Sweden.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The effect of a decision support system on the incidence of prescription errors in a PICU.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2022Observational
- Artificial intelligence-based internet hospital pharmacy services in China: Perspective based on a case study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Effect of a Medication Decision Support System on Albumin Prescribing: A Pre-post Study in Intensive Care Units of Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran.Journal of research in pharmacy practiceArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectivePaediatric intensive care patients are at high risk for prescription errors due to the more complex process of medication prescribing. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have shown good results in effectively reducing prescription errors. A specific dosing CDSS was developed that can check and suggest normal dose, dose limits and administration frequencies. This study aimed to assess the effect of this CDSS on protocol deviation (as measure of prescription error) types and frequency in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU).
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted evaluating 9342 prescriptions in a 4-month period before and after the implementation of a CDSS in the PICU of the University Medical Center Utrecht. Medication forms were reviewed to identify protocol deviations (and therefore possible prescription errors). The incidence and nature of deviations from evidence-based protocols that were unintended and needed to be adjusted, were determined. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In the period before the dosing CDSS, we identified 45 protocol deviations in 5034 prescriptions (0.89%), 28 of which could not be justified (0.56%) and 11 needed to be adjusted (0.22%). In the period after the implementation of the CDSS, there were 21 protocol deviations in 4308 prescriptions (0.49%) of which ten without a valid reason (0.23%) of which two were adjusted (0.05%). WHAT IS NEW AND
conclusionThe specific dosing CDSS was able to significantly reduce unintentional prescription dose deviations and the number of prescriptions that needed to be adjusted, in an existing low incidence situation.
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.