Caroline Mir1, Amina Gadri1, Georges L Zelger2, Renaud Pichon1, André Pannatier3,4,5. 1. Pharmacie des Hôpitaux du Nord Vaudois et de la Broye (PHNVB), Entremonts 11, 1400, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland. 2. Pharmacie des Hôpitaux du Nord Vaudois et de la Broye (PHNVB), Entremonts 11, 1400, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland. georges.zelger@phnvb.ch. 3. Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, EPGL, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the change in non-compliant items in prescription orders following the implementation of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system named PreDiMed. SETTING: The department of internal medicine (39 and 38 beds) in two regional hospitals in Canton Vaud, Switzerland. METHOD: The prescription lines in 100 pre- and 100 post-implementation patients' files were classified according to three modes of administration (medicines for oral or other non-parenteral uses; medicines administered parenterally or via nasogastric tube; pro re nata (PRN), as needed) and analyzed for a number of relevant variables constitutive of medical prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The monitored variables depended on the pharmaceutical category and included mainly name of medicine, pharmaceutical form, posology and route of administration, diluting solution, flow rate and identification of prescriber. RESULTS: In 2,099 prescription lines, the total number of non-compliant items was 2,265 before CPOE implementation, or 1.079 non-compliant items per line. Two-thirds of these were due to missing information, and the remaining third to incomplete information. In 2,074 prescription lines post-CPOE implementation, the number of non-compliant items had decreased to 221, or 0.107 non-compliant item per line, a dramatic 10-fold decrease (chi(2) = 4615; P < 10(-6)). Limitations of the computerized system were the risk for erroneous items in some non-prefilled fields and ambiguity due to a field with doses shown on commercial products. CONCLUSION: The deployment of PreDiMed in two departments of internal medicine has led to a major improvement in formal aspects of physicians' prescriptions. Some limitations of the first version of PreDiMed were unveiled and are being corrected.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the change in non-compliant items in prescription orders following the implementation of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system named PreDiMed. SETTING: The department of internal medicine (39 and 38 beds) in two regional hospitals in Canton Vaud, Switzerland. METHOD: The prescription lines in 100 pre- and 100 post-implementation patients' files were classified according to three modes of administration (medicines for oral or other non-parenteral uses; medicines administered parenterally or via nasogastric tube; pro re nata (PRN), as needed) and analyzed for a number of relevant variables constitutive of medical prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The monitored variables depended on the pharmaceutical category and included mainly name of medicine, pharmaceutical form, posology and route of administration, diluting solution, flow rate and identification of prescriber. RESULTS: In 2,099 prescription lines, the total number of non-compliant items was 2,265 before CPOE implementation, or 1.079 non-compliant items per line. Two-thirds of these were due to missing information, and the remaining third to incomplete information. In 2,074 prescription lines post-CPOE implementation, the number of non-compliant items had decreased to 221, or 0.107 non-compliant item per line, a dramatic 10-fold decrease (chi(2) = 4615; P < 10(-6)). Limitations of the computerized system were the risk for erroneous items in some non-prefilled fields and ambiguity due to a field with doses shown on commercial products. CONCLUSION: The deployment of PreDiMed in two departments of internal medicine has led to a major improvement in formal aspects of physicians' prescriptions. Some limitations of the first version of PreDiMed were unveiled and are being corrected.
Authors: Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chunliu Zhan; Rodney W Hicks; Christopher M Blanchette; Margaret A Keyes; Diane D Cousins Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: George A Gellert; Linda Catzoela; Lajja Patel; Kylynn Bruner; Felix Friedman; Ricardo Ramirez; Lilliana Saucedo; S Luke Webster; John A Gillean Journal: Perspect Health Inf Manag Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Jitsuda Sitthi-Amorn; Emily Denton; Erin Harper; Delia Carias; Saman Hashmi; Sakshi Bami; Allison Ast; Taylor Landry; Kenneth L Pettit; Shilpa Gorantla; Anna Vinitsky; Yan Zheng; Liza-Marie Johnson Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2022-06-14
Authors: G A Gellert; V Hill; K Bruner; G Maciaz; L Saucedo; L Catzoela; R Ramirez; W J Jacobs; P Nguyen; L Patel; S L Webster Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Ian Litchfield; Rachel Spencer; Brian G Bell; Anthony Avery; Katherine Perryman; Kate Marsden; Sheila Greenfield; Stephen Campbell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 2.655