OBJECTIVE: The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded an evidence report to address seven questions on multiple aspects of the effectiveness of medication management information technology (MMIT) and its components (prescribing, order communication, dispensing, administering, and monitoring). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline and 11 other databases without language or date limitations to mid-2010. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing integrated MMIT were selected by two independent reviewers. Reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Senior staff checked accuracy. RESULTS: Most of the 87 RCTs focused on clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry systems, were performed in hospitals and clinics, included primarily physicians and sometimes nurses but not other health professionals, and studied process changes related to prescribing and monitoring medication. Processes of care improved for prescribing and monitoring mostly in hospital settings, but the few studies measuring clinical outcomes showed small or no improvements. Studies were performed most frequently in the USA (n=63), Europe (n=16), and Canada (n=6). DISCUSSION: Many studies had limited description of systems, installations, institutions, and targets of the intervention. Problems with methods and analyses were also found. Few studies addressed order communication, dispensing, or administering, non-physician prescribers or pharmacists and their MMIT tools, or patients and caregivers. Other study methods are also needed to completely understand the effects of MMIT. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of MMIT interventions improved the process of care, but few studies measured clinical outcomes. This large body of literature, although instructive, is not uniformly distributed across settings, people, medication phases, or outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded an evidence report to address seven questions on multiple aspects of the effectiveness of medication management information technology (MMIT) and its components (prescribing, order communication, dispensing, administering, and monitoring). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline and 11 other databases without language or date limitations to mid-2010. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing integrated MMIT were selected by two independent reviewers. Reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Senior staff checked accuracy. RESULTS: Most of the 87 RCTs focused on clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry systems, were performed in hospitals and clinics, included primarily physicians and sometimes nurses but not other health professionals, and studied process changes related to prescribing and monitoring medication. Processes of care improved for prescribing and monitoring mostly in hospital settings, but the few studies measuring clinical outcomes showed small or no improvements. Studies were performed most frequently in the USA (n=63), Europe (n=16), and Canada (n=6). DISCUSSION: Many studies had limited description of systems, installations, institutions, and targets of the intervention. Problems with methods and analyses were also found. Few studies addressed order communication, dispensing, or administering, non-physician prescribers or pharmacists and their MMIT tools, or patients and caregivers. Other study methods are also needed to completely understand the effects of MMIT. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of MMIT interventions improved the process of care, but few studies measured clinical outcomes. This large body of literature, although instructive, is not uniformly distributed across settings, people, medication phases, or outcomes.
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Kristen Reidel; Allen Huang; Laurel Taylor; Nancy Winslade; Gillian Bartlett; Roland Grad; André Jacques; Martin Dawes; Pierre Larochelle; Alain Pinsonneault Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Alexander G Fiks; Kenya F Hunter; A Russell Localio; Robert W Grundmeier; Tyra Bryant-Stephens; Anthony A Luberti; Louis M Bell; Evaline A Alessandrini Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: B L Rotman; A N Sullivan; T W McDonald; B W Brown; P DeSmedt; D Goodnature; M C Higgins; H J Suermondt; C Young; D K Owens Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1996 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: M M Kuilboer; M A M van Wijk; M Mosseveld; E van der Does; J C de Jongste; S E Overbeek; B Ponsioen; J van der Lei Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Louis M Bell; Robert Grundmeier; Russell Localio; Joseph Zorc; Alexander G Fiks; Xuemei Zhang; Tyra Bryant Stephens; Marguerite Swietlik; James P Guevara Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Eta S Berner; Thomas K Houston; Midge N Ray; Jeroan J Allison; Gustavo R Heudebert; W Winn Chatham; John I Kennedy; Gerald L Glandon; Patricia A Norton; Myra A Crawford; Richard S Maisiak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Li Zhou; Lisa M Mahoney; Anastasiya Shakurova; Foster Goss; Frank Y Chang; David W Bates; Roberto A Rocha Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2012-11-03
Authors: Steven M Handler; Richard D Boyce; Frank M Ligons; Subashan Perera; David A Nace; Harry Hochheiser Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Maria Flamm; Gerhard Fritsch; Martin Hysek; Sabine Klausner; Karl Entacher; Sigrid Panisch; Andreas C Soennichsen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 4.497