Literature DB >> 31291678

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Decrease Platelet Ordering Errors and a Proposed Model for Evaluating Clinical Decision Support Effectiveness.

Julia Whitlow Yarahuan1, Amy Billet2, Jonathan D Hron1.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31291678      PMCID: PMC6620180          DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Clin Inform        ISSN: 1869-0327            Impact factor:   2.342


  40 in total

1.  Using information systems to measure and improve quality.

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

2.  Study designs for PDSA quality improvement research.

Authors:  Theodore Speroff; Gerald T O'Connor
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2004 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.926

Review 3.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

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

4.  The impact of computerized provider order entry on medication errors in a multispecialty group practice.

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

Review 5.  Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision.

Authors:  B Middleton; D F Sittig; A Wright
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2016-08-02

6.  Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors.

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

7.  The state of the art in clinical knowledge management: an inventory of tools and techniques.

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

8.  Lessons learned from implementing service-oriented clinical decision support at four sites: A qualitative study.

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

9.  Computerized Physician Order Entry - effectiveness and efficiency of electronic medication ordering with decision support systems.

Authors:  Heidi Stürzlinger; Cora Hiebinger; Daniela Pertl; Peter Traurig
Journal:  GMS Health Technol Assess       Date:  2009-05-19

Review 10.  Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) haemovigilance and progress is improving transfusion safety.

Authors:  Paula H B Bolton-Maggs; Hannah Cohen
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 6.998

View more
  3 in total

1.  Formative Usability Testing Reduces Severe Blood Product Ordering Errors.

Authors:  Evan W Orenstein; Jeanne Boudreaux; Margo Rollins; Jennifer Jones; Christy Bryant; Dean Karavite; Naveen Muthu; Jessica Hike; Herb Williams; Tania Kilgore; Alexis B Carter; Cassandra D Josephson
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-12-25       Impact factor: 2.342

2.  Is the Climb Worth the View? The Savings/Alert Ratio for Reducing Vitamin D Testing.

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

3.  Sustained Improvement in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality Measures Using an Electronic Health Record Intervention.

Authors:  Andrew Bensinger; Farra Wilson; Patrick Green; Richard Bloomfeld; Ajay Dharod
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.342

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.