Difference between revisions of "Duplicate Orders: An Unintended Consequence of Computerized provider/physician order entry (CPOE) Implementation"
(→Background) |
(→Background) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* Substitution | * Substitution | ||
* Allergies | * Allergies | ||
| + | |||
The authors’ objective in this report was to describe the nature of duplicate orders, report their analysis of them and describe the methods used to reduce them. | The authors’ objective in this report was to describe the nature of duplicate orders, report their analysis of them and describe the methods used to reduce them. | ||
Revision as of 07:06, 2 April 2015
This is a review of Magid, Forrer, and Shaha’s 2012 article, Duplicate Orders: An Unintended Consequence of Computerized provider/physician order entry (CPOE) Implementation: Analysis and Mitigation Strategies [1]
Background
The benefits of computerized provider/physician order entry (CPOE) have been identified after many research trials. CPOE, particularly with clinical decision support (CDS), has been shown to increase patient safety. CPOE has also been reported to improve:[1]
- The utilization of health care services
- Decrease costs
- Reduce hospital length of stay
- Decrease medical errors
- Improve compliance with guidelines
CPOE systems improve legibility and decrease errors relating to look-alike, sound-alike medications. Reductions in medication errors have been noted for:[1]
- Dosing
- Frequency
- Route
- Substitution
- Allergies
The authors’ objective in this report was to describe the nature of duplicate orders, report their analysis of them and describe the methods used to reduce them.
