Chiedozie Udeh1, Christina Canfield2, Isaac Briskin3, Aaron C Hamilton4. 1. Department of Intensive Care and Resuscitation, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Medical Operations, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Hospital Medicine, Quality and Patient Safety Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wrong patient selection errors may be tracked by retract-reorder (RAR) events. The aim of this quality improvement study was to assess the impact of reducing the number of concurrently open electronic health records from 4 to 2 on RAR errors generated by a tele-critical care service. METHODS: The study encompassed 32 months before and 21 months after restriction. Chi-Square test of proportions and T statistical process control chart for rare events were used. RESULTS: There were 156 318 orders with 57 RAR errors (36.5/100 000 orders) before restriction, and 122 587 orders with 34 errors (27.7/100 000 orders) after. Rates were not statistically different (P = .20), but analysis was underpowered. When plotted on a T control chart, random variation was detected between RAR errors. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in RAR errors in the tele-critical care setting after open record limitation. Other strategies should be studied to reduce wrong patient selection errors.
BACKGROUND: Wrong patient selection errors may be tracked by retract-reorder (RAR) events. The aim of this quality improvement study was to assess the impact of reducing the number of concurrently open electronic health records from 4 to 2 on RAR errors generated by a tele-critical care service. METHODS: The study encompassed 32 months before and 21 months after restriction. Chi-Square test of proportions and T statistical process control chart for rare events were used. RESULTS: There were 156 318 orders with 57 RAR errors (36.5/100 000 orders) before restriction, and 122 587 orders with 34 errors (27.7/100 000 orders) after. Rates were not statistically different (P = .20), but analysis was underpowered. When plotted on a T control chart, random variation was detected between RAR errors. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in RAR errors in the tele-critical care setting after open record limitation. Other strategies should be studied to reduce wrong patient selection errors.
Authors: Ross Koppel; Charles E Leonard; A Russell Localio; Abigail Cohen; Ruthann Auten; Brian L Strom Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Robert A Green; George Hripcsak; Hojjat Salmasian; Eliot J Lazar; Susan B Bostwick; Suzanne R Bakken; David K Vawdrey Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 5.721
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: Abha Agrawal; Jeffrey K Aronson; Nicky Britten; Robin E Ferner; Peter A de Smet; Daniela Fialová; Richard J Fitzgerald; Robert Likić; Simon R Maxwell; Ronald H Meyboom; Pietro Minuz; Graziano Onder; Michael Schachter; Giampaolo Velo Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Sarah K Pontefract; Jamie J Coleman; Hannah K Vallance; Christine A Hirsch; Sonal Shah; John F Marriott; Sabi Redwood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240