David Rubins1,2, Robert Boxer1,2, Adam Landman2,3, Adam Wright1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA and. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adjusting the default order set settings on telemetry usage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective, controlled, before-after study of patients admitted to a house staff medicine service at an academic medical center examining the effect of changing whether the admission telemetry order was pre-selected or not. Telemetry orders on admission and subsequent orders for telemetry were monitored pre- and post-change. Two other order sets that had no change in their default settings were used as controls. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2017 and May 1, 2018, there were 1, 163 patients admitted using the residency-customized version of the admission order set which initially had telemetry pre-selected. In this group of patients, there was a significant decrease in telemetry ordering in the post-intervention period: from 79.1% of patients in the 8.5 months prior ordered to have telemetry to 21.3% of patients ordered in the 7.5 months after (χ2 = 382; P < .001). There was no significant change in telemetry usage among patients admitted using the two control order sets. DISCUSSION: Default settings have been shown to affect clinician ordering behavior in multiple domains. Consistent with prior findings, our study shows that changing the order set settings can significantly affect ordering practices. Our study was limited in that we were unable to determine if the change in ordering behavior had significant impact on patient care or safety. CONCLUSION: Decisions about default selections in electronic health record order sets can have significant consequences on ordering behavior.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adjusting the default order set settings on telemetry usage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective, controlled, before-after study of patients admitted to a house staff medicine service at an academic medical center examining the effect of changing whether the admission telemetry order was pre-selected or not. Telemetry orders on admission and subsequent orders for telemetry were monitored pre- and post-change. Two other order sets that had no change in their default settings were used as controls. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2017 and May 1, 2018, there were 1, 163 patients admitted using the residency-customized version of the admission order set which initially had telemetry pre-selected. In this group of patients, there was a significant decrease in telemetry ordering in the post-intervention period: from 79.1% of patients in the 8.5 months prior ordered to have telemetry to 21.3% of patients ordered in the 7.5 months after (χ2 = 382; P < .001). There was no significant change in telemetry usage among patients admitted using the two control order sets. DISCUSSION: Default settings have been shown to affect clinician ordering behavior in multiple domains. Consistent with prior findings, our study shows that changing the order set settings can significantly affect ordering practices. Our study was limited in that we were unable to determine if the change in ordering behavior had significant impact on patient care or safety. CONCLUSION: Decisions about default selections in electronic health record order sets can have significant consequences on ordering behavior.
Authors: Satish Ramkumar; Edward H Tsoi; Ajay Raghunath; Floyd F Dias; Christopher Li Wai Suen; Andrew H Tsoi; Darren R Mansfield Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Mitesh S Patel; Susan Day; Dylan S Small; John T Howell; Gillian L Lautenbach; Eliot H Nierman; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Robert Dressler; Marylou M Dryer; Christian Coletti; Donna Mahoney; Andrew J Doorey Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nina Fålun; Jan Erik Nordrehaug; Per Ivar Hoff; Jørund Langørgen; Philip Moons; Tone M Norekvål Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Matthew D Bayley; J Sanford Schwartz; Frances S Shofer; Mark Weiner; Frank D Sites; K Bobbi Traber; Judd E Hollander Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Raymond Y Yeow; Garth W Strohbehn; Calvin M Kagan; Christopher M Petrilli; Jamuna K Krishnan; Karli Edholm; L Scott Sussman; Jaime F Blanck; Remus I Popa; Amit K Pahwa Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Christine L Mozer; Palak H Bhagat; Sarah A Seward; Noah R Mason; Samantha L Anderson; Maxx Byron; Leah B Peirce; Victoria Konold; Madan Kumar; Vineet M Arora; Nicola M Orlov Journal: Hosp Pediatr Date: 2021-03-17