OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of the structure and code sets specified in the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs Structured and Codified Sig Format to represent ambulatory electronic prescriptions. DESIGN: We parsed the Sig strings from a sample of 20,161 de-identified ambulatory e-prescriptions into variables representing the fields of the Structured and Codified Sig Format. A stratified random sample of these representations was then reviewed by a group of experts. For codified Sig fields, we attempted to map the actual words used by prescribers to the equivalent terms in the designated terminology. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of prescriptions that the Format could fully represent; proportion of terms used that could be mapped to the designated terminology. RESULTS: The fields defined in the Format could fully represent 95% of Sigs (95% CI 93% to 97%), but ambiguities were identified, particularly in representing multiple-step instructions. The terms used by prescribers could be codified for only 60% of dose delivery methods, 84% of dose forms, 82% of vehicles, 95% of routes, 70% of sites, 33% of administration timings, and 93% of indications. LIMITATIONS: The findings are based on a retrospective sample of ambulatory prescriptions derived mostly from primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: The fields defined in the Format could represent most of the patient instructions in a large prescription sample, but prior to its mandatory adoption, further work is needed to ensure that potential ambiguities are addressed and that a complete set of terms is available for the codified fields.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of the structure and code sets specified in the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs Structured and Codified Sig Format to represent ambulatory electronic prescriptions. DESIGN: We parsed the Sig strings from a sample of 20,161 de-identified ambulatory e-prescriptions into variables representing the fields of the Structured and Codified Sig Format. A stratified random sample of these representations was then reviewed by a group of experts. For codified Sig fields, we attempted to map the actual words used by prescribers to the equivalent terms in the designated terminology. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of prescriptions that the Format could fully represent; proportion of terms used that could be mapped to the designated terminology. RESULTS: The fields defined in the Format could fully represent 95% of Sigs (95% CI 93% to 97%), but ambiguities were identified, particularly in representing multiple-step instructions. The terms used by prescribers could be codified for only 60% of dose delivery methods, 84% of dose forms, 82% of vehicles, 95% of routes, 70% of sites, 33% of administration timings, and 93% of indications. LIMITATIONS: The findings are based on a retrospective sample of ambulatory prescriptions derived mostly from primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: The fields defined in the Format could represent most of the patient instructions in a large prescription sample, but prior to its mandatory adoption, further work is needed to ensure that potential ambiguities are addressed and that a complete set of terms is available for the codified fields.
Authors: Matvey B Palchuk; Elizabeth A Fang; Janet M Cygielnik; Matthew Labreche; Maria Shubina; Harley Z Ramelson; Claus Hamann; Carol Broverman; Jonathan S Einbinder; Alexander Turchin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Terry C Davis; Michael S Wolf; Pat F Bass; Jason A Thompson; Hugh H Tilson; Marolee Neuberger; Ruth M Parker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Samuel J Wang; Blackford Middleton; Lisa A Prosser; Christiana G Bardon; Cynthia D Spurr; Patricia J Carchidi; Anne F Kittler; Robert C Goldszer; David G Fairchild; Andrew J Sussman; Gilad J Kuperman; David W Bates Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Paul Shekelle; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jessica Agnew-Blais; Ruth M Parker; William H Shrank Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ana L Hincapie; Ahmad Alamer; Julie Sears; Terri L Warholak; Semin Goins; Sara Danielle Weinstein Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Corey A Lester; Allen J Flynn; Vincent D Marshall; Scott Rochowiak; James P Bagian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942