Julia Whitlow Yarahuan1, Amy Billet2, Jonathan D Hron1. 1. Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 2. Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support (CDS) and computerized provider order entry have been shown to improve health care quality and safety, but may also generate previously unanticipated errors. We identified multiple CDS tools for platelet transfusion orders. In this study, we sought to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of those CDS tools while creating and testing a framework for future evaluation of other CDS tools. METHODS: Using a query of an enterprise data warehouse at a tertiary care pediatric hospital, we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess baseline use and performance of existing CDS for platelet transfusion orders. Our outcome measure was the percentage of platelet undertransfusion ordering errors. Errors were defined as platelet transfusion volumes ordered which were less than the amount recommended by the order set used. We then redesigned our CDS and measured the impact of our intervention prospectively using statistical process control methodology. RESULTS: We identified that 62% of all platelet transfusion orders were placed with one of two order sets (Inpatient Service 1 and Inpatient Service 2). The Inpatient Service 1 order set had a significantly higher occurrence of ordering errors (3.10% compared with 1.20%). After our interventions, platelet transfusion order error occurrence on Inpatient Service 1 decreased from 3.10 to 0.33%. CONCLUSION: We successfully reduced platelet transfusion ordering errors by redesigning our CDS tools. We suggest that the use of collections of clinical data may help identify patterns in erroneous ordering, which could otherwise go undetected. We have created a framework which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of other similar CDS tools. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support (CDS) and computerized provider order entry have been shown to improve health care quality and safety, but may also generate previously unanticipated errors. We identified multiple CDS tools for platelet transfusion orders. In this study, we sought to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of those CDS tools while creating and testing a framework for future evaluation of other CDS tools. METHODS: Using a query of an enterprise data warehouse at a tertiary care pediatric hospital, we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess baseline use and performance of existing CDS for platelet transfusion orders. Our outcome measure was the percentage of platelet undertransfusion ordering errors. Errors were defined as platelet transfusion volumes ordered which were less than the amount recommended by the order set used. We then redesigned our CDS and measured the impact of our intervention prospectively using statistical process control methodology. RESULTS: We identified that 62% of all platelet transfusion orders were placed with one of two order sets (Inpatient Service 1 and Inpatient Service 2). The Inpatient Service 1 order set had a significantly higher occurrence of ordering errors (3.10% compared with 1.20%). After our interventions, platelet transfusion order error occurrence on Inpatient Service 1 decreased from 3.10 to 0.33%. CONCLUSION: We successfully reduced platelet transfusion ordering errors by redesigning our CDS tools. We suggest that the use of collections of clinical data may help identify patterns in erroneous ordering, which could otherwise go undetected. We have created a framework which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of other similar CDS tools. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: D W Bates; E Pappius; G J Kuperman; D Sittig; H Burstin; D Fairchild; T A Brennan; J M Teich Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 1999 Feb-Mar Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emily Beth Devine; Ryan N Hansen; Jennifer L Wilson-Norton; N M Lawless; Albert W Fisk; David K Blough; Diane P Martin; Sean D Sullivan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jan-Feb 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: Dean F Sittig; Adam Wright; Linas Simonaitis; James D Carpenter; George O Allen; Bradley N Doebbeling; Anwar Mohammad Sirajuddin; Joan S Ash; Blackford Middleton Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Adam Wright; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Jessica L Erickson; Trang T Hickman; Marilyn Paterno; Eric Gebhardt; Carmit McMullen; Ruslana Tsurikova; Brian E Dixon; Greg Fraser; Linas Simonaitis; Frank A Sonnenberg; Blackford Middleton Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Chase D Hendrickson; Michael F McLemore; Kathryn M Dahir; Shari Just; Zahra Shajani-Yi; Joseph LeGrand; Christoph U Lehmann; Asli Weitkamp Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 2.342