OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an ambulatory computerized provider order entry (CPOE ) system on the time efficiency of prescribers. Two primary aims were to compare prescribing time between (1) handwritten and electronic (e-) prescriptions and (2) e-prescriptions using differing hardware configurations. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary data on prescribers/staff were collected (2005-2007) at three primary care clinics in a community based, multispecialty health system. STUDY DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental, direct observation, time-motion study conducted in two phases. In phase 1 (n=69 subjects), each site used a unique combination of CPOE software/hardware (paper-based, desktops in prescriber offices or hallway workstations, or laptops). In phase 2 (n=77), all sites used CPOE software on desktops in examination rooms (at point of care). DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Data were collected using TimerPro software on a Palm device. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Average time to e-prescribe using CPOE in the examination room was 69 seconds/prescription-event (new/renewed combined)-25 seconds longer than to handwrite (99.5 percent confidence interval [CI] 12.38), and 24 seconds longer than to e-prescribe at offices/workstations (99.5 percent CI 8.39). Each calculates to 20 seconds longer per patient. CONCLUSIONS: E-prescribing takes longer than handwriting. E-prescribing at the point of care takes longer than e-prescribing in offices/workstations. Improvements in safety and quality may be worth the investment of time.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an ambulatory computerized provider order entry (CPOE ) system on the time efficiency of prescribers. Two primary aims were to compare prescribing time between (1) handwritten and electronic (e-) prescriptions and (2) e-prescriptions using differing hardware configurations. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary data on prescribers/staff were collected (2005-2007) at three primary care clinics in a community based, multispecialty health system. STUDY DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental, direct observation, time-motion study conducted in two phases. In phase 1 (n=69 subjects), each site used a unique combination of CPOE software/hardware (paper-based, desktops in prescriber offices or hallway workstations, or laptops). In phase 2 (n=77), all sites used CPOE software on desktops in examination rooms (at point of care). DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Data were collected using TimerPro software on a Palm device. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Average time to e-prescribe using CPOE in the examination room was 69 seconds/prescription-event (new/renewed combined)-25 seconds longer than to handwrite (99.5 percent confidence interval [CI] 12.38), and 24 seconds longer than to e-prescribe at offices/workstations (99.5 percent CI 8.39). Each calculates to 20 seconds longer per patient. CONCLUSIONS: E-prescribing takes longer than handwriting. E-prescribing at the point of care takes longer than e-prescribing in offices/workstations. Improvements in safety and quality may be worth the investment of time.
Authors: Eric G Poon; David Blumenthal; Tonushree Jaggi; Melissa M Honour; David W Bates; Rainu Kaushal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lisa Pizziferri; Anne F Kittler; Lynn A Volk; Melissa M Honour; Sameer Gupta; Samuel Wang; Tiffany Wang; Margaret Lippincott; Qi Li; David W Bates Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2004-12-14 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: John Hsu; Jie Huang; Vicki Fung; Nan Robertson; Holly Jimison; Richard Frankel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: D W Bates; J M Teich; J Lee; D Seger; G J Kuperman; N Ma'Luf; D Boyle; L Leape Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1999 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Allen Huang; Yuko Kawasumi; Gillian Bartlett; Roland Grad; André Jacques; Martin Dawes; Michal Abrahamowicz; Robert Perreault; Laurel Taylor; Nancy Winslade; Lise Poissant; Alain Pinsonneault Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Emily Beth Devine; Emily C Williams; Diane P Martin; Dean F Sittig; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Thomas H Payne; Sean D Sullivan Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Ronald A Hankey; Lindsay K Decker; Stephen S Cha; Robert A Greenes; Hongfang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhry Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2014-08-25
Authors: Johanna I Westbrook; Ling Li; Andrew Georgiou; Richard Paoloni; John Cullen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 4.497