Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38283885›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2024

Design and evaluation of an electronic prospective medication order review system for medication orders in the inpatient setting.

Pooja Ojha, Benjamin J Anderson, Evan W Draper, Susan M Flaker, Mark H Siska, Kristin C Mara, Brian D Kennedy, Diana J Schreier

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pooja OjhaDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Benjamin J AndersonDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Evan W DraperDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Susan M FlakerDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Mark H SiskaDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Kristin C MaraDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Brian D KennedyDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.
Diana J SchreierDepartment of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Since the 1970s, a plethora of tools have been introduced to support the medication use process. However, automation initiatives to assist pharmacists in prospectively reviewing medication orders are lacking. The review of many medications may be protocolized and implemented in an algorithmic fashion utilizing discrete data from the electronic health record (EHR). This research serves as a proof of concept to evaluate the capability and effectiveness of an electronic prospective medication order review (EPMOR) system compared to pharmacists' review. Materials and methods: A subset of the most frequently verified medication orders were identified for inclusion. A team of clinical pharmacist experts developed best-practice EPMOR criteria. The established criteria were incorporated into conditional logic built within the EHR. Verification outcomes from the pharmacist (human) and EPMOR (automation) were compared. Results: Overall, 13 404 medication orders were included. Of those orders, 13 133 passed pharmacist review, 7388 of which passed EPMOR. A total of 271 medication orders failed pharmacist review due to order modification or discontinuation, 105 of which passed EPMOR. Of the 105 orders, 19 were duplicate orders correctly caught by both EPMOR and pharmacists, but the opposite duplicate order was rejected, 51 orders failed due to scheduling changes. Discussion: This simulation was capable of effectively discriminating and triaging orders. Protocolization and automation of the prospective medication order review process in the EHR appear possible using clinically driven algorithms. Conclusion: Further research is necessary to refine such algorithms to maximize value, improve efficiency, and minimize safety risks in preparation for the implementation of fully automated systems.

Indexed as

automationelectronic prospective medication order reviewinformaticspharmacistsprospective medication order review

Identifiers

PMID38283885
PMCPMC10822119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.