Ji Qiu1, Tingting Deng2, Zhuo Wang3, Zhangwei Yang4, Ting Liu1, Yunjie Liu1, Rui Li1, Fu Dai5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Hefei Binhu Hospital, Hefei, Anhui, China. 2. Sichuan Kelun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China. 4. Information Section, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China. 5. Hefei Binhu Hospital, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The sequence of intravenous infusions may impact the efficacy, safety, and cost of intravenous medications. The study describes and assesses a computerized clinical decision support annotation system capable of analyzing the sequence of intravenous infusions. METHODS: All intravenous medications on the hospital formulary were analyzed based on factors that impact intravenous infusion sequence. Eight pharmacy infusion knowledge databases were constructed based on Hospital Infusion Standards. These databases were incorporated into the computerized sequence annotation module within the electronic health record system. The annotation process was changed from pharmacists' manual annotation (phase 1) to computer-aided pharmacist manual annotation (phase 2) to automated computer annotation (phase 3). RESULTS: Comparing phase 2 to phase 1, there were significant differences in sequence annotation with regards to the percentage of hospital wards annotated (100% vs. 4.65%, chi-square = 180.95, p < 0.001), percentage of patients annotated (64.18% vs. 0.52%, chi-square = 90.46, p < 0.001), percentage of intravenous orders annotated (75.67% vs. 0.77%, chi-square = 118.78, p < 0.001), and the number of tubing flushes per ward per day (118.51 vs. 2,115.00, p < 0.001). Compared with phase 1, there were significant cost savings in tubing flushes in phase 2 and phase 3. Compared with phase 1, there was significant difference in the time nurses spent on tubing flushes in phase 2 and phase 3 (1,244.94 vs. 21,684.8 minutes, p < 0.001; 1,369.51 vs. 21,684.8 minutes, p < 0.001). Compared with phase 1, significantly less time was required for pharmacist annotation in phase 2 and phase 3 (90.6 vs. 4,753.57 minutes, p < 0.001; 0.05 vs. 4,753.57 minutes, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A computerized infusion annotation system is efficient in sequence annotation and significant savings in tubing flushes can be achieved as a result. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: The sequence of intravenous infusions may impact the efficacy, safety, and cost of intravenous medications. The study describes and assesses a computerized clinical decision support annotation system capable of analyzing the sequence of intravenous infusions. METHODS: All intravenous medications on the hospital formulary were analyzed based on factors that impact intravenous infusion sequence. Eight pharmacy infusion knowledge databases were constructed based on Hospital Infusion Standards. These databases were incorporated into the computerized sequence annotation module within the electronic health record system. The annotation process was changed from pharmacists' manual annotation (phase 1) to computer-aided pharmacist manual annotation (phase 2) to automated computer annotation (phase 3). RESULTS: Comparing phase 2 to phase 1, there were significant differences in sequence annotation with regards to the percentage of hospital wards annotated (100% vs. 4.65%, chi-square = 180.95, p < 0.001), percentage of patients annotated (64.18% vs. 0.52%, chi-square = 90.46, p < 0.001), percentage of intravenous orders annotated (75.67% vs. 0.77%, chi-square = 118.78, p < 0.001), and the number of tubing flushes per ward per day (118.51 vs. 2,115.00, p < 0.001). Compared with phase 1, there were significant cost savings in tubing flushes in phase 2 and phase 3. Compared with phase 1, there was significant difference in the time nurses spent on tubing flushes in phase 2 and phase 3 (1,244.94 vs. 21,684.8 minutes, p < 0.001; 1,369.51 vs. 21,684.8 minutes, p < 0.001). Compared with phase 1, significantly less time was required for pharmacist annotation in phase 2 and phase 3 (90.6 vs. 4,753.57 minutes, p < 0.001; 0.05 vs. 4,753.57 minutes, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A computerized infusion annotation system is efficient in sequence annotation and significant savings in tubing flushes can be achieved as a result. Thieme. All rights reserved.