Відмінності між версіями «Molecular Weight Of Jtc-801»
м |
Leg6ice (обговорення • внесок) м |
||
| Рядок 1: | Рядок 1: | ||
| − | + | He potential for drug name/ identification errors across various stages on the medication ordering process. This tool incorporated precise medication ordering, assessment, and deletion scenarios used toA QUALITATIVE STUDY EXPLORING THE VULNERABILITIES OF COMPUTERIZED Physician ORDER ENTRY SYSTEMS Sarah P. Slight1,2; Tewodros Eguale1,3; Mary Amato1,four; Andrew [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 25033180 25033180] C. Seger4; Diana L. Whitney5; David W. Bates1,6; Gordon D. Schiff1,six. 1Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; 2 Durham University, Stockton on Tees, Uk; 3McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 4MCPHS University, Boston, MA; 5Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; 6Harvard Health-related School, Boston, MA. (Tracking ID #1935926) BACKGROUND: Computerized Doctor Order Entry (CPOE) systems can prevent medication errors in each inpatient and outpatient settings. Based on how they are developed, even so, they can fail to optimally protect against many prescribing errors or introduce new errors. The Institute of Medicine report Well being IT and Patient Safety: Constructing Safer Systems for Improved Care advised that precise examples of potentially unsafe processes and risk-enhancing interfaces be identified and shared amongst the health IT community. This study aims to test the vulnerabilities of a wide range of CPOE systems to diverse forms of medication errors, and to create a additional extensive understanding of how CPOE human elements style may be improved. Strategies: As part of a National Patient Security Foundation-funded project, we examined a array of major vendor and household grown CPOE systems (e.g., Cerner; Epic; Medi-tech; LMR; BICS; GE Centricity) in diverse organizations in United states and Canada. Common users at each of 16 web-sites have been asked to enter 13 different orders on test individuals primarily based on scenarios of previously reported CPOE errors. Users have been encouraged to utilize each usual practice and, where-needed, workarounds to enter the erroneous orders, along with reflect on their general know-how and experience of utilizing their technique. A research pharmacist and investigation assistant independently observed test users enter each and every order and rated the ease or difficulty of these entries employing standardized operational definitions.JGIMABSTRACTSFigure 1: Baseline and One particular Y Outcomes in MHHI ear Usual Care HbA1C ( )* Baseline A single Year Change Baseline One particular Year Change Baseline One particular Year Change 9.03 9.25 +0.21 135 134 -1 108 111 +SRESULTS: Ease of entry of erroneous orders and the generation of alert warnings in different CPOE systems was extremely variable and appeared to rely on many factors including how the order info was entered (i.e., within a structured or unstructured way); no matter if a particular alert functionality (e.g., duplicate-drug checking) was operational in the technique; and which drugs or drug combinations were integrated within the clinical choice help algorithms. Test customers located the wording of lots of of your alert warnings confusing and expressed frustrations with all the way irrelevant warnings appeared around the similar screen as those additional relevant for the current order. The timing of alert warnings also differed across CPOE systems, with risky drug-drug interaction warnings displayed, one example is, only immediately after both Imdur?(isosorbide [http://sen-boutique.com/members/lentil8jump/activity/1073676/ Molecular Weight Of Jtc-801] mononitrate) and Revatio?(sildenafil) had been entered along with the order signed off in two CPOE systems. Alert warnings also varied in their degree of severity in various systems even inside precisely the same institution (e.g., test user was presented with a. | |
Версія за 05:57, 16 серпня 2017
He potential for drug name/ identification errors across various stages on the medication ordering process. This tool incorporated precise medication ordering, assessment, and deletion scenarios used toA QUALITATIVE STUDY EXPLORING THE VULNERABILITIES OF COMPUTERIZED Physician ORDER ENTRY SYSTEMS Sarah P. Slight1,2; Tewodros Eguale1,3; Mary Amato1,four; Andrew 25033180 25033180 C. Seger4; Diana L. Whitney5; David W. Bates1,6; Gordon D. Schiff1,six. 1Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; 2 Durham University, Stockton on Tees, Uk; 3McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 4MCPHS University, Boston, MA; 5Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; 6Harvard Health-related School, Boston, MA. (Tracking ID #1935926) BACKGROUND: Computerized Doctor Order Entry (CPOE) systems can prevent medication errors in each inpatient and outpatient settings. Based on how they are developed, even so, they can fail to optimally protect against many prescribing errors or introduce new errors. The Institute of Medicine report Well being IT and Patient Safety: Constructing Safer Systems for Improved Care advised that precise examples of potentially unsafe processes and risk-enhancing interfaces be identified and shared amongst the health IT community. This study aims to test the vulnerabilities of a wide range of CPOE systems to diverse forms of medication errors, and to create a additional extensive understanding of how CPOE human elements style may be improved. Strategies: As part of a National Patient Security Foundation-funded project, we examined a array of major vendor and household grown CPOE systems (e.g., Cerner; Epic; Medi-tech; LMR; BICS; GE Centricity) in diverse organizations in United states and Canada. Common users at each of 16 web-sites have been asked to enter 13 different orders on test individuals primarily based on scenarios of previously reported CPOE errors. Users have been encouraged to utilize each usual practice and, where-needed, workarounds to enter the erroneous orders, along with reflect on their general know-how and experience of utilizing their technique. A research pharmacist and investigation assistant independently observed test users enter each and every order and rated the ease or difficulty of these entries employing standardized operational definitions.JGIMABSTRACTSFigure 1: Baseline and One particular Y Outcomes in MHHI ear Usual Care HbA1C ( )* Baseline A single Year Change Baseline One particular Year Change Baseline One particular Year Change 9.03 9.25 +0.21 135 134 -1 108 111 +SRESULTS: Ease of entry of erroneous orders and the generation of alert warnings in different CPOE systems was extremely variable and appeared to rely on many factors including how the order info was entered (i.e., within a structured or unstructured way); no matter if a particular alert functionality (e.g., duplicate-drug checking) was operational in the technique; and which drugs or drug combinations were integrated within the clinical choice help algorithms. Test customers located the wording of lots of of your alert warnings confusing and expressed frustrations with all the way irrelevant warnings appeared around the similar screen as those additional relevant for the current order. The timing of alert warnings also differed across CPOE systems, with risky drug-drug interaction warnings displayed, one example is, only immediately after both Imdur?(isosorbide Molecular Weight Of Jtc-801 mononitrate) and Revatio?(sildenafil) had been entered along with the order signed off in two CPOE systems. Alert warnings also varied in their degree of severity in various systems even inside precisely the same institution (e.g., test user was presented with a.
