Impact of a computerized physician order entry system on compliance with prescription accuracy requirements.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the change in non-compliant items in prescription orders following the implementation of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system named PreDiMed. SETTING: The department of internal medicine (39 and 38 beds) in two regional hospitals in Canton Vaud, Switzerland. METHOD: The prescription lines in 100 pre- and 100 post-implementation patients' files were classified according to three modes of administration (medicines for oral or other non-parenteral uses; medicines administered parenterally or via nasogastric tube; pro re nata (PRN), as needed) and analyzed for a number of relevant variables constitutive of medical prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The monitored variables depended on the pharmaceutical category and included mainly name of medicine, pharmaceutical form, posology and route of administration, diluting solution, flow rate and identification of prescriber. RESULTS: In 2,099 prescription lines, the total number of non-compliant items was 2,265 before CPOE implementation, or 1.079 non-compliant items per line. Two-thirds of these were due to missing information, and the remaining third to incomplete information. In 2,074 prescription lines post-CPOE implementation, the number of non-compliant items had decreased to 221, or 0.107 non-compliant item per line, a dramatic 10-fold decrease (chi(2) = 4615; P < 10(-6)). Limitations of the computerized system were the risk for erroneous items in some non-prefilled fields and ambiguity due to a field with doses shown on commercial products. CONCLUSION: The deployment of PreDiMed in two departments of internal medicine has led to a major improvement in formal aspects of physicians' prescriptions. Some limitations of the first version of PreDiMed were unveiled and are being corrected.

Optimisation des doses en tomographie computérisée pédiatrique [Patient dose optimization in pediatric computerized tomography]

The development of CT applications might become a public health problem if no effort is made on the justification and the optimisation of the examinations. This paper presents some hints to assure that the risk-benefit compromise remains in favour of the patient, especially when one deals with the examinations of young patients. In this context a particular attention has to be made on the justification of the examination. When performing the acquisition one needs to optimise the extension of the volume investigated together with the number of acquisition sequences used. Finally, the use of automatic exposure systems, now available on all the units, and the use of the Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRL) should allow help radiologists to control the exposure of their patients.

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining therapeutic concentrations of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health care could be achieved if computer advice improved health outcomes and could be implemented in routine practice in a cost effective fashion. This is an updated version of an earlier Cochrane systematic review, by Walton et al, published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether computerised advice on drug dosage has beneficial effects on the process or outcome of health care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialized register (June 1996 to December 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), EMBASE (1980 to December 2006), hand searched the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (1979 to March 2007) and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (1996 to March 2007) as well as reference lists from primary articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of computerized advice on drug dosage were included. The participants were health professionals responsible for patient care. The outcomes were: any objectively measured change in the behaviour of the health care provider (such as changes in the dose of drug used); any change in the health of patients resulting from computerized advice (such as adverse reactions to drugs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six comparisons (23 articles) were included (as compared to fifteen comparisons in the original review) including a wide range of drugs in inpatient and outpatient settings. Interventions usually targeted doctors although some studies attempted to influence prescriptions by pharmacists and nurses. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, their quality was generally low. Computerized advice for drug dosage gave significant benefits by:1.increasing the initial dose (standardised mean difference 1.12, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.92)2.increasing serum concentrations (standradised mean difference 1.12, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82)3.reducing the time to therapeutic stabilisation (standardised mean difference -0.55, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.08)4.reducing the risk of toxic drug level (rate ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70)5.reducing the length of hospital stay (standardised mean difference -0.35, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.17). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that computerized advice for drug dosage has some benefits: it increased the initial dose of drug, increased serum drug concentrations and led to a more rapid therapeutic control. It also reduced the risk of toxic drug levels and the length of time spent in the hospital. However, it had no effect on adverse reactions. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that some decision support technical features (such as its integration into a computer physician order entry system) or aspects of organization of care (such as the setting) could optimise the effect of computerised advice.

Randomized trial of a computerized coronary heart disease risk assessment tool in HIV-infected patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) can lead to important metabolic changes and increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Computerized clinical decision support systems have been advocated to improve the management of patients at risk for CHD but it is unclear whether such systems reduce patients' risk for CHD. METHODS: We conducted a cluster trial within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) of HIV-infected patients, aged 18 years or older, not pregnant and receiving cART for >3 months. We randomized 165 physicians to either guidelines for CHD risk factor management alone or guidelines plus CHD risk profiles. Risk profiles included the Framingham risk score, CHD drug prescriptions and CHD events based on biannual assessments, and were continuously updated by the SHCS data centre and integrated into patient charts by study nurses. Outcome measures were total cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and Framingham risk score. RESULTS: A total of 3,266 patients (80% of those eligible) had a final assessment of the primary outcome at least 12 months after the start of the trial. Mean (95% confidence interval) patient differences where physicians received CHD risk profiles and guidelines, rather than guidelines alone, were total cholesterol -0.02 mmol/l (-0.09-0.06), systolic blood pressure -0.4 mmHg (-1.6-0.8), diastolic blood pressure -0.4 mmHg (-1.5-0.7) and Framingham 10-year risk score -0.2% (-0.5-0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic computerized routine provision of CHD risk profiles in addition to guidelines does not significantly improve risk factors for CHD in patients on cART.