Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36788034›Full record

SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2023

Indication documentation and indication-based prescribing within electronic prescribing systems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Calandra Feather, Nicholas Appelbaum, Ara Darzi, Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Evaluating NLP Approaches to Extract Drug Indications.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Compulsory Indications in Hospital Prescribing Software Tested with Antibacterial Prescriptions.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Calandra FeatherDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK c.feather@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1322-6589
Nicholas AppelbaumDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ara DarziInstitute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bryony Dean FranklinCentre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2892-1245

Funding

Department of Health 1215-20013Department of Health PSTRC-2016-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite recommendations, documentation of indication on prescriptions and inpatient medication orders is not routinely practised. There has been a recent systematic review of indication documentation for antimicrobials, but not for interventions relating to indication documentation for medication more broadly. Our aims were to 1) identify, describe and synthesise the literature relating to effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving indication documentation and/or indication-based prescribing in both primary and secondary healthcare; 2) synthesise participant perspectives to identify barriers and facilitators to these interventions; and 3) make recommendations for both practice and research.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase and CINAHL using two search concepts: electronic prescribing systems, and indication documentation and/or indication-based prescribing. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies were included; outcome measures and results were extracted to produce a narrative synthesis. Quality appraisal by two independent reviewers was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

resultsWe identified 21 studies evaluating interventions to aid indication documentation. Indication documentation was either via free-text, selection from a list, or by use of pre-defined indication-based order sentences for individual medications. For a number of outcomes, there was a mostly positive impact, including appropriateness of the medication order (6 of 8 studies), rates of prescribing error (2/2) and some less commonly reported clinical (2/4) and workflow-related outcomes (2/3). There was a less favourable impact on accuracy of indication documentation and rates of medication use, highlighting some unintended consequences that may occur when implementing new interventions. Participant insights from prescribers and other healthcare professionals complemented quantitative study results, highlighting both facilitators and barriers to indication documentation and the associated interventions. For example, barriers included long drop-down lists and the need to use workarounds to navigate approval systems due to time or knowledge constraints. Facilitating factors included the perceived benefits of indication documentation on communication among the healthcare team and with the patient.

conclusionIndication documentation has the potential to improve appropriate prescribing and reduce prescribing errors. However, further benefits to the prescriber, multidisciplinary team and patient may only be realised by developing methods of indication documentation that integrate more efficiently with prescriber workflows. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278495.

Indexed as

Electronic PrescribingCommunicationDocumentationHealth PersonnelHumansNarrationdecision support, computerisedmedication safetypatient safety

Identifiers

PMID36788034
PMCPMC10313979

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.