OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine rates of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) patient identity verification and when and where in the ordering process verification occurred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five physicians from 4 healthcare systems completed simulated patient scenarios using their respective CPOE system (Epic or Cerner). Eye movements were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Across all participants patient id was verified significantly more often than not (62.4% vs 37.6%). Vendor A had significantly higher verification rates than not; vendor B had no difference. Participants using vendor A verified information significantly more often before signing the order than after (88.4% vs 11.6%); there was no difference in vendor B. The banner bar was the most frequent verification location. DISCUSSION: Factors such as CPOE design, physician training, and the use of a simulated methodology may be impacting verification rates. CONCLUSIONS: Verification rates vary by CPOE product, and this can have patient safety consequences.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine rates of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) patient identity verification and when and where in the ordering process verification occurred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five physicians from 4 healthcare systems completed simulated patient scenarios using their respective CPOE system (Epic or Cerner). Eye movements were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Across all participantspatient id was verified significantly more often than not (62.4% vs 37.6%). Vendor A had significantly higher verification rates than not; vendor B had no difference. Participants using vendor A verified information significantly more often before signing the order than after (88.4% vs 11.6%); there was no difference in vendor B. The banner bar was the most frequent verification location. DISCUSSION: Factors such as CPOE design, physician training, and the use of a simulated methodology may be impacting verification rates. CONCLUSIONS: Verification rates vary by CPOE product, and this can have patient safety consequences.
Authors: Johanna I Westbrook; Enrico Coiera; William T M Dunsmuir; Bruce M Brown; Norm Kelk; Richard Paoloni; Cuong Tran Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-05-12
Authors: Chunliu Zhan; Rodney W Hicks; Christopher M Blanchette; Margaret A Keyes; Diane D Cousins Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Jason S Adelman; Jo R Applebaum; Clyde B Schechter; Matthew A Berger; Stan H Reissman; Raja Thota; Andrew D Racine; David K Vawdrey; Robert A Green; Hojjat Salmasian; Gordon D Schiff; Adam Wright; Adam Landman; David W Bates; Ross Koppel; William L Galanter; Bruce L Lambert; Susan Paparella; William N Southern Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jason S Adelman; Gary E Kalkut; Clyde B Schechter; Jeffrey M Weiss; Matthew A Berger; Stan H Reissman; Hillel W Cohen; Stephen J Lorenzen; Daniel A Burack; William N Southern Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: James M Walker; Pascale Carayon; Nancy Leveson; Ronald A Paulus; John Tooker; Homer Chin; Albert Bothe; Walter F Stewart Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Philip L Henneman; Donald L Fisher; Elizabeth A Henneman; Tuan A Pham; Megan M Campbell; Brian H Nathanson Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 5.721