Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38092360›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2023

How Safe are Outpatient Electronic Health Records? An Evaluation of Medication-Related Decision Support using the Ambulatory Electronic Health Record Evaluation Tool.

Zoe Co, David C Classen, Jessica M Cole, Diane L Seger, Randy Madsen, Terrance Davis, Patricia McGaffigan, David W Bates

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Zoe CoDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
David C ClassenDivision of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Jessica M ColeDivision of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Diane L SegerClinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, Massachusetts, United States.
Randy MadsenBiomedical Informatics Core, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Terrance DavisBiomedical Informatics Core, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
Patricia McGaffiganInstitute of Health Improvement, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
David W BatesDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of the Ambulatory Electronic Health Record (EHR) Evaluation Tool is to provide outpatient clinics with an assessment that they can use to measure the ability of the EHR system to detect and prevent common prescriber errors. The tool consists of a medication safety test and a medication reconciliation module.

objectivesThe goal of this study was to perform a broad evaluation of outpatient medication-related decision support using the Ambulatory EHR Evaluation Tool.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study with 10 outpatient clinics using the Ambulatory EHR Evaluation Tool. For the medication safety test, clinics were provided test patients and associated medication test orders to enter in their EHR, where they recorded any advice or information they received. Once finished, clinics received an overall percentage score of unsafe orders detected and individual order category scores. For the medication reconciliation module, clinics were asked to electronically reconcile two medication lists, where modifications were made by adding and removing medications and changing the dosage of select medications.

resultsFor the medication safety test, the mean overall score was 57%, with the highest score being 70%, and the lowest score being 40%. Clinics performed well in the drug allergy (100%), drug dose daily (85%), and inappropriate medication combinations (74%) order categories. Order categories with the lowest performance were drug laboratory (10%) and drug monitoring (3%). Most clinics (90%) scored a 0% in at least one order category. For the medication reconciliation module, only one clinic (10%) could reconcile medication lists electronically; however, there was no clinical decision support available that checked for drug interactions.

conclusionWe evaluated a sample of ambulatory practices around their medication-related decision support and found that advanced capabilities within these systems have yet to be widely implemented. The tool was practical to use and identified substantial opportunities for improvement in outpatient medication safety.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsOutpatientsAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMedication Reconciliation

Identifiers

PMID38092360
PMCPMC10719043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.