Difference between revisions of "Computerized Provider Order Entry Reduces Length of Stay in a Community Hospital"

From Clinfowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Methods)
(Results)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
==Results==
 
==Results==
 +
In 13 of the 19 disciplines studied, there was a statistical correspondence between gains in CPOE and changes in LOS.  The overall house sample showed a high statistical significance for a linear regression, and the 13 disciplines that showed a correlation also showed a statistical significance for a linear regression but due to smaller sample sizes the significance was lower.  The data also showed a inflection point at 58.31% CPOE adoption rate meaning that the LOS had a significant drop at this time.
 +
 
==Discussion==
 
==Discussion==
 
==Conclusion==
 
==Conclusion==

Revision as of 20:13, 4 October 2015

Abstract

Objective: Does computerized provider order entry (CPOE) improve clinical, cost, and efficiency outcomes as quantified in shortened hospital length of stay (LOS)? Most prior studies were done in university settings with home-grown electronic records, and are now 20 years old. This study asked whether CPOE exerts a downward force on LOS in the current era of HITECH incentives, using a vendor product in a community hospital. Methods: The methodology retrospectively evaluated correlation between CPOE and LOS on a per- patient, per-visit basis over 22 consecutive quarters, organized by discipline. All orders from all areas were eligible, except verbals, and medication orders in the emergency department which were not available via CPOE. These results were compared with quarterly case mix indices organ- ized by discipline. Correlational and regression analyses were cross-checked to ensure validity of R-square coefficients, and data were smoothed for ease of display. Standard models were used to calculate the inflection point. Results: Gains in CPOE adoption occurred iteratively house-wide, and in each discipline. LOS de- creased in a sigmoid shaped curve. The inflection point shows that once CPOE adoption approaches 60%, further lowering of LOS accelerates. Overall there was a 20.2% reduction in LOS correlated with adoption of CPOE. Case mix index increased during the study period showing that reductions in LOS occurred despite increased patient complexity and resource utilization. Conclusions: There was a 20.2% reduction in LOS correlated with rising adoption of CPOE. CPOE contributes to improved clinical, cost, and efficiency outcomes as quantified in reduced LOS, over and above other processes introduced to lower LOS. CPOE enabled a reduction in LOS despite an increase in the case mix index during the time frame of this study.

Summary

Background

Recently there has been a pressure on hospitals to reduce the length of stay (LOS) of all patients. Numerous strategies have been implemented to reduce LOS, one of which is the reliance on EHRs. Older studies have suggested that CPOE can reduce LOS. This study is trying to investigate if CPOEs contribute to shortened LOS, and if so at what level will CPOE adoption impact on LOS start to accelerate.

Methods

The hospital implemented an EMR in august 2007 followed by a CPOE system in February of 2008. The study then collected retrospective data fro 66 consecutive months from July 2007 to December 2012. This data included 76,972 discharges and 6,135,994 orders. The data was then summarized by quarterly LOS and by 19 different disciplines. After summarization, the data was analyzed for correlation and regression of CPOE and LOS.

Results

In 13 of the 19 disciplines studied, there was a statistical correspondence between gains in CPOE and changes in LOS. The overall house sample showed a high statistical significance for a linear regression, and the 13 disciplines that showed a correlation also showed a statistical significance for a linear regression but due to smaller sample sizes the significance was lower. The data also showed a inflection point at 58.31% CPOE adoption rate meaning that the LOS had a significant drop at this time.

Discussion

Conclusion

Comments

References