ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Vulnerability of a New Zealand hospital computerised provider order entry system to prescribing error: a comparative study with other systems.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 21-year Comparative Study of Prescriptions of Benzodiazepines and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Related Drugs in a Japanese University Hospital.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Long-Term Trends in Prescribing of Etizolam for Hypnotic Use in a Japanese University Hospital.Human psychopharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe computerised provider order entry (CPOE) system MedChart is going to be the national CPOE system in New Zealand's public hospitals.
aimsWe tested the vulnerability of our health region configuration of MedChart and its clinical decision support (CDS) to prescription ordering errors and compared it to other CPOE systems. We also tested whether ordering workflow influenced system vulnerability.
methodsTen testers completed 16 published scenarios simulating ordering errors in a training environment of MedChart. The difficulty of completing each scenario was recorded using a five-point Likert scale (1 = easily, 5 = impossible). Difficulty scores were summarised for each scenario. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on whether testers ordered sequentially or concurrently for scenarios involving two prescriptions.
resultsMedChart best protected (difficulty score 5) against omission and mixed frequency errors. Worst protections (difficulty score 1) were against drug-drug interaction, duplicate ordering error, wrong frequency for medicine form error, and under dosing error scenarios. Compared to other CPOE systems, MedChart provided better protection against more than half of the scenarios, but similar vulnerabilities were identified. Sequential versus concurrent ordering workflows significantly altered system protections for only one test scenario involving duplicate enoxaparin orders (median 3.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004).
conclusionsThese findings highlight areas for improvement in MedChart system configuration. Different ordering workflows require consideration when implementing CDS. Publication of CPOE testing using standardised tools could facilitate comparison of safety performance between institutions.
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.