Juan D Chaparro1, David C Classen2, Melissa Danforth3, David C Stockwell4, Christopher A Longhurst5. 1. Departments of Biomedical Informatics and Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, and Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, California, USA. 2. University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. The Leapfrog Group, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Children's National Health System and George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Departments of Biomedical Informatics and Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the safety of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and associated clinical decision support (CDS) systems in electronic health record (EHR) systems at pediatric inpatient facilities in the US using the Leapfrog Group's pediatric CPOE evaluation tool. Methods: The Leapfrog pediatric CPOE evaluation tool, a previously validated tool to assess the ability of a CPOE system to identify orders that could potentially lead to patient harm, was used to evaluate 41 pediatric hospitals over a 2-year period. Evaluation of the last available test for each institution was performed, assessing performance overall as well as by decision support category (eg, drug-drug, dosing limits). Longitudinal analysis of test performance was also carried out to assess the impact of testing and the overall trend of CPOE performance in pediatric hospitals. Results: Pediatric CPOE systems were able to identify 62% of potential medication errors in the test scenarios, but ranged widely from 23-91% in the institutions tested. The highest scoring categories included drug-allergy interactions, dosing limits (both daily and cumulative), and inappropriate routes of administration. We found that hospitals with longer periods since their CPOE implementation did not have better scores upon initial testing, but after initial testing there was a consistent improvement in testing scores of 4 percentage points per year. Conclusions: Pediatric computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems on average are able to intercept a majority of potential medication errors, but vary widely among implementations. Prospective and repeated testing using the Leapfrog Group's evaluation tool is associated with improved ability to intercept potential medication errors.
Objective: To evaluate the safety of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and associated clinical decision support (CDS) systems in electronic health record (EHR) systems at pediatric inpatient facilities in the US using the Leapfrog Group's pediatric CPOE evaluation tool. Methods: The Leapfrog pediatric CPOE evaluation tool, a previously validated tool to assess the ability of a CPOE system to identify orders that could potentially lead to patient harm, was used to evaluate 41 pediatric hospitals over a 2-year period. Evaluation of the last available test for each institution was performed, assessing performance overall as well as by decision support category (eg, drug-drug, dosing limits). Longitudinal analysis of test performance was also carried out to assess the impact of testing and the overall trend of CPOE performance in pediatric hospitals. Results: Pediatric CPOE systems were able to identify 62% of potential medication errors in the test scenarios, but ranged widely from 23-91% in the institutions tested. The highest scoring categories included drug-allergy interactions, dosing limits (both daily and cumulative), and inappropriate routes of administration. We found that hospitals with longer periods since their CPOE implementation did not have better scores upon initial testing, but after initial testing there was a consistent improvement in testing scores of 4 percentage points per year. Conclusions: Pediatric computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems on average are able to intercept a majority of potential medication errors, but vary widely among implementations. Prospective and repeated testing using the Leapfrog Group's evaluation tool is associated with improved ability to intercept potential medication errors.
Authors: Yong Y Han; Joseph A Carcillo; Shekhar T Venkataraman; Robert S B Clark; R Scott Watson; Trung C Nguyen; Hülya Bayir; Richard A Orr Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Marvin B Harper; Christopher A Longhurst; Troy L McGuire; Rod Tarrago; Bimal R Desai; Al Patterson Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Gautham Suresh; Jeffrey D Horbar; Paul Plsek; James Gray; William H Edwards; Patricia H Shiono; Robert Ursprung; Julianne Nickerson; Jerold F Lucey; Donald Goldmann Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Zoe Co; A Jay Holmgren; David C Classen; Lisa Newmark; Diane L Seger; Melissa Danforth; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christopher A Longhurst; Taylor Davis; Amy Maneker; H C Eschenroeder; Rachel Dunscombe; George Reynolds; Brian Clay; Thomas Moran; David B Graham; Shannon M Dean; Julia Adler-Milstein Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Adam Wright; Dustin S McEvoy; Skye Aaron; Allison B McCoy; Mary G Amato; Hyun Kim; Angela Ai; James J Cimino; Bimal R Desai; Robert El-Kareh; William Galanter; Christopher A Longhurst; Sameer Malhotra; Ryan P Radecki; Lipika Samal; Richard Schreiber; Eric Shelov; Anwar Mohammad Sirajuddin; Dean F Sittig Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: David C Classen; A Jay Holmgren; Zoe Co; Lisa P Newmark; Diane Seger; Melissa Danforth; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Kirk D Wyatt; Elizabeth B Freedman; Grace M Arteaga; Vilmarie Rodriguez; Deepti M Warad Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 4.452