The impact of a computerized physician order entry system implementation on 20 different criteria of medication documentation-a before-and-after study.

Computerized physician order entry system Documentation errors Evaluation results Medication prescription

Journal

BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 10 2021
Historique:
received: 29 04 2021
accepted: 09 08 2021
entrez: 12 10 2021
pubmed: 13 10 2021
medline: 3 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The medication process is complex and error-prone. To avoid medication errors, a medication order should fulfil certain criteria, such as good readability and comprehensiveness. In this context, a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system can be helpful. This study aims to investigate the distinct effects on the quality of prescription documentation of a CPOE system implemented on general wards in a large tertiary care hospital. In a retrospective analysis, the prescriptions of two groups of 160 patients each were evaluated, with data collected before and after the introduction of a CPOE system. According to nationally available recommendations on prescription documentation, it was assessed whether each prescription fulfilled the established 20 criteria for a safe, complete, and actionable prescription. The resulting fulfilment scores (prescription-Fscores) were compared between the pre-implementation and the post-implementation group and a multivariable analysis was performed to identify the effects of further covariates, i.e., the prescription category, the ward, and the number of concurrently prescribed drugs. Additionally, the fulfilment of the 20 criteria was assessed at an individual criterion-level (denoted criteria-Fscores). The overall mean prescription-Fscore increased from 57.4% ± 12.0% (n = 1850 prescriptions) before to 89.8% ± 7.2% (n = 1592 prescriptions) after the implementation (p < 0.001). At the level of individual criteria, criteria-Fscores significantly improved in most criteria (n = 14), with 6 criteria reaching a total score of 100% after CPOE implementation. Four criteria showed no statistically significant difference and in two criteria, criteria-Fscores deteriorated significantly. A multivariable analysis confirmed the large impact of the CPOE implementation on prescription-Fscores which was consistent when adjusting for the confounding potential of further covariates. While the quality of prescription documentation generally increases with implementation of a CPOE system, certain criteria are difficult to fulfil even with the help of a CPOE system. This highlights the need to accompany a CPOE implementation with a thorough evaluation that can provide important information on possible improvements of the software, training needs of prescribers, or the necessity of modifying the underlying clinical processes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The medication process is complex and error-prone. To avoid medication errors, a medication order should fulfil certain criteria, such as good readability and comprehensiveness. In this context, a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system can be helpful. This study aims to investigate the distinct effects on the quality of prescription documentation of a CPOE system implemented on general wards in a large tertiary care hospital.
METHODS
In a retrospective analysis, the prescriptions of two groups of 160 patients each were evaluated, with data collected before and after the introduction of a CPOE system. According to nationally available recommendations on prescription documentation, it was assessed whether each prescription fulfilled the established 20 criteria for a safe, complete, and actionable prescription. The resulting fulfilment scores (prescription-Fscores) were compared between the pre-implementation and the post-implementation group and a multivariable analysis was performed to identify the effects of further covariates, i.e., the prescription category, the ward, and the number of concurrently prescribed drugs. Additionally, the fulfilment of the 20 criteria was assessed at an individual criterion-level (denoted criteria-Fscores).
RESULTS
The overall mean prescription-Fscore increased from 57.4% ± 12.0% (n = 1850 prescriptions) before to 89.8% ± 7.2% (n = 1592 prescriptions) after the implementation (p < 0.001). At the level of individual criteria, criteria-Fscores significantly improved in most criteria (n = 14), with 6 criteria reaching a total score of 100% after CPOE implementation. Four criteria showed no statistically significant difference and in two criteria, criteria-Fscores deteriorated significantly. A multivariable analysis confirmed the large impact of the CPOE implementation on prescription-Fscores which was consistent when adjusting for the confounding potential of further covariates.
CONCLUSIONS
While the quality of prescription documentation generally increases with implementation of a CPOE system, certain criteria are difficult to fulfil even with the help of a CPOE system. This highlights the need to accompany a CPOE implementation with a thorough evaluation that can provide important information on possible improvements of the software, training needs of prescribers, or the necessity of modifying the underlying clinical processes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34635100
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01607-6
pii: 10.1186/s12911-021-01607-6
pmc: PMC8504043
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

279

Investigateurs

Janina Bittmann (J)
Markus Fabian (M)
Ulrike Klein (U)
Silvia Kugler (S)
Martin Löpprich (M)
Oliver Reinhard (O)
Lucienne Scholz (L)
Birgit Zeeh (B)
Wolfgang Bitz (W)
Till Bugaj (T)
Lars Kihm (L)
Stefan Kopf (S)
Anja Liemann (A)
Petra Wagenlechner (P)
Johanna Zemva (J)
Claudia Benkert (C)
Christian Merle (C)
Sergej Roman (S)
Stefan Welte (S)

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Psychol Methods. 2006 Mar;11(1):54-71
pubmed: 16594767
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Sep;101(9):e2
pubmed: 27540199
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Oct;73(10):1279-1286
pubmed: 28643030
JAMA. 1995 Jul 5;274(1):29-34
pubmed: 7791255
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1197-203
pubmed: 15755942
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Nov-Dec;20(6):1159-67
pubmed: 23721982
Health Serv Res. 2017 Oct;52(5):1928-1957
pubmed: 27714800
J Crit Care. 2014 Apr;29(2):188-93
pubmed: 24287174
Int J Clin Pharm. 2019 Feb;41(1):228-236
pubmed: 30446896
Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Apr 1;147(7):694-703
pubmed: 9554609
JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1311-6
pubmed: 9794308
Crit Care. 2005 Oct 5;9(5):R516-21
pubmed: 16277713
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 24;10(7):e0134101
pubmed: 26207363
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Mar;111:112-122
pubmed: 29425622
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):432-440
pubmed: 27582471
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999 Jul-Aug;6(4):313-21
pubmed: 10428004
Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):R21
pubmed: 16469126
Int J Public Health. 2017 Jan;62(1):163-167
pubmed: 27796415
Drug Saf. 2020 Jun;43(6):517-537
pubmed: 32125666
Int J Clin Pharm. 2013 Aug;35(4):577-83
pubmed: 23575623
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 15;167(4):268-274
pubmed: 28693043
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Oct;15(10):908-15
pubmed: 18785946
Intern Med J. 2012 Mar;42(3):e19-22
pubmed: 22432997
JMIR Med Inform. 2020 Jul 20;8(7):e15653
pubmed: 32706721
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):539-49
pubmed: 19390113
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):413-422
pubmed: 28395016

Auteurs

Viktoria Jungreithmayr (V)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Andreas D Meid (AD)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Walter E Haefeli (WE)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Hanna M Seidling (HM)

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. hanna.seidling@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. hanna.seidling@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH