Difference between revisions of "Development and field testing of a self-assessment guide for computer-based provider order entry"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
They presented this 22 item assessment to a group of chief medical informatics officers (CMIO) and asked to them to respond with how much deliberation the CPOE system presented for each of the items. The responses to the assessment were assembled and analyzed. | They presented this 22 item assessment to a group of chief medical informatics officers (CMIO) and asked to them to respond with how much deliberation the CPOE system presented for each of the items. The responses to the assessment were assembled and analyzed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Results == | ||
| + | |||
| + | There were nine CMIOs that returned the completed assessment, from various hospitals across the country, with a variety of EMRs in use. The CMIOs indicated that they were mostly able to complete the assessment by themselves and thought the items were concise and some suggested a few extra items to be assessed (a common theme in the respondents' interviews were the concerns of over-use of alerts). The respondents all agreed that the assessment was useful and perceived the purpose of the guide as a review for making sure the widely accepted practices in CPOE are implemented. | ||
Revision as of 00:10, 18 February 2015
This is a review for Carl V. Vartian, MD, Hardeep Singh, MD, Elise Russo and Dean Sittig’s Development and Field Testing of a Self-Assessment Guide for Computer-Based Provider Order Entry. [1]
Background
While newly-available computer-based physician order entry (CPOE) can provide many benefits for the medical organizations and providers that use them, there are certain patient safety risks that might be presented after a CPOE implementation. With the Meaningful Use incentive promoting EHR and CPOE adoption in both the inpatient and outpatient settings, the accelerated implementations have increased reports of negative effects of these systems’ use. As a result of these negative reports, there has been a push to create a method of assessing CPOE-specific risks for healthcare organizations.
Materials and Methods
The authors performed analysis on relevant literature based on EHRs/CPOE systems and patient safety and interviewed subject matter experts in order to create a base of 250 items to include in the assessment. These items were then preliminary tested at site visits with clinicians. After this first round of tests, the items had been compressed to 22 concepts to be assessed.
They presented this 22 item assessment to a group of chief medical informatics officers (CMIO) and asked to them to respond with how much deliberation the CPOE system presented for each of the items. The responses to the assessment were assembled and analyzed.
Results
There were nine CMIOs that returned the completed assessment, from various hospitals across the country, with a variety of EMRs in use. The CMIOs indicated that they were mostly able to complete the assessment by themselves and thought the items were concise and some suggested a few extra items to be assessed (a common theme in the respondents' interviews were the concerns of over-use of alerts). The respondents all agreed that the assessment was useful and perceived the purpose of the guide as a review for making sure the widely accepted practices in CPOE are implemented.
References
- ↑ Carl V. Vartian, MD, Hardeep Singh, MD, Elise Russo and Dean Sittig’s Development and Field Testing of a Self-Assessment Guide for Computer-Based Provider Order Entry. J healthc Manag. 2014 Sep-Oct ; 59(5):338-52. doi: 10.1080/17538150802127298. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25647953
