Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34734650›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2022

The effect of a decision support system on the incidence of prescription errors in a PICU.

Fatema Hashemi, Thomas G van Gelder, Casper W Bollen, Yves T B Liem, Toine C G Egberts

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Fatema HashemiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thomas G van GelderDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Casper W BollenPaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Yves T B LiemDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Toine C G EgbertsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLPharmo Institute · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLWilhelmina Children's Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMedication ErrorsChildDrug PrescriptionsHumansIncidenceIntensive Care Units, Pediatricclinical pharmacycomputerised decision supportpaediatricsprescribingprescribing practices

Identifiers

PMID34734650
PMCPMC9298080
OpenAlexW3209628440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.