D L Sanders1, R A Miller. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of computerized ordering guidelines on clinician ordering patterns for neuroradiology imaging studies of the head. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis was performed using a pre-post design. A 9-week control period was followed by an 8-week intervention period. SUBJECTS: All clinicians who placed an order for either an MRI of the brain or a CT of the head on inpatients using a computerized order entry system. METHODS: We designed, implemented, and evaluated a decision support system for the implementation of test ordering guidelines. Changes in ordering patterns were evaluated with a Chi-square analysis. RESULTS: 742 tests were ordered in the pre-intervention period, while 704 studies were ordered after the intervention. A significant change in the distribution of tests ordered resulted from the intervention (p=0.048). Changes trended toward the guideline recommendations for all tests considered. 60% of users receiving a recommendation ordered the suggested study. DISCUSSION: Our intervention successfully influenced clinician ordering patterns. Examination of detailed usage patterns may aid in further quality improvement of both the guidelines and the decision support tool used to implement them.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of computerized ordering guidelines on clinician ordering patterns for neuroradiology imaging studies of the head. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis was performed using a pre-post design. A 9-week control period was followed by an 8-week intervention period. SUBJECTS: All clinicians who placed an order for either an MRI of the brain or a CT of the head on inpatients using a computerized order entry system. METHODS: We designed, implemented, and evaluated a decision support system for the implementation of test ordering guidelines. Changes in ordering patterns were evaluated with a Chi-square analysis. RESULTS: 742 tests were ordered in the pre-intervention period, while 704 studies were ordered after the intervention. A significant change in the distribution of tests ordered resulted from the intervention (p=0.048). Changes trended toward the guideline recommendations for all tests considered. 60% of users receiving a recommendation ordered the suggested study. DISCUSSION: Our intervention successfully influenced clinician ordering patterns. Examination of detailed usage patterns may aid in further quality improvement of both the guidelines and the decision support tool used to implement them.
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Antoine J Geissbuhler; William D Dupont; Dario A Giuse; Douglas A Talbert; William M Tierney; W Dale Plummer; William W Stead; Randolph A Miller Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew Georgiou; Mirela Prgomet; Andrew Markewycz; Edwina Adams; Johanna I Westbrook Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jing Du; Young-Taek Park; Nawanan Theera-Ampornpunt; Jeffrey S McCullough; Stuart M Speedie Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Kou-Wei Chiu; Daniel W Byrne; Doug A Talbert; Eric G Neilson; Randolph A Miller Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Asli Ozdas; Theodore Speroff; L Russell Waitman; Judy Ozbolt; Javed Butler; Randolph A Miller Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Justin F Rousseau; Ivan K Ip; Ali S Raja; Vladimir I Valtchinov; Laila Cochon; Jeremiah D Schuur; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 2.342