通过 Epic 电子病历确定吸入性皮质类固醇的依从性。

Q2 Medicine
Ashley Galbreath, Anzeela Schentrup, Sreekala Prabhakaran, Dawn Baker, Alicia Hardy, Leslie Hendeles
{"title":"通过 Epic 电子病历确定吸入性皮质类固醇的依从性。","authors":"Ashley Galbreath, Anzeela Schentrup, Sreekala Prabhakaran, Dawn Baker, Alicia Hardy, Leslie Hendeles","doi":"10.5863/1551-6776-29.1.45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Often we call the patient's pharmacy to obtain a refill history to assess inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) adherence. The purpose of this project was to determine the accuracy of refill histories for ICS (with or without long-acting beta agonist) listed in Epic's Medication Dispense History.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 61 patients and used data from 38 who met the following criteria: 1) under the care of the UF Pediatric Severe Asthma Clinic; 2) taking the same dose of the same ICS product for 6 months before the patient's last clinic visit; and 3) having data available from the pharmacy where the last ICS prescription was electronically sent. We called the pharmacies to obtain a verbal report of their refill record. Then, we compared the number of refills reported to the number listed in Epic's records using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 293 refill dates listed in Epic, 157 were duplicates, giving a 54% error. After deleting duplicates, the mean (SD) number of refills listed in Epic was 3.6 (2.0) compared with 3.3 (2.0) in pharmacies over a period of 6 months (p < 0.0001). After removing duplicates Epic correctly reported the total number of refills for 30 of the 38 patients (78.9%). Seven of the remaining patients had more refills listed in Epic while 1 patient had more refills dispensed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study indicates that our version of Epic over-reports refills thus limiting assessment of adherence. In contrast, absence of refills in Epic is a clear indication of poor adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":37484,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10849692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining Adherence to Inhaled Corticosteroids From the Epic Electronic Medical Record.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Galbreath, Anzeela Schentrup, Sreekala Prabhakaran, Dawn Baker, Alicia Hardy, Leslie Hendeles\",\"doi\":\"10.5863/1551-6776-29.1.45\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Often we call the patient's pharmacy to obtain a refill history to assess inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) adherence. The purpose of this project was to determine the accuracy of refill histories for ICS (with or without long-acting beta agonist) listed in Epic's Medication Dispense History.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 61 patients and used data from 38 who met the following criteria: 1) under the care of the UF Pediatric Severe Asthma Clinic; 2) taking the same dose of the same ICS product for 6 months before the patient's last clinic visit; and 3) having data available from the pharmacy where the last ICS prescription was electronically sent. We called the pharmacies to obtain a verbal report of their refill record. Then, we compared the number of refills reported to the number listed in Epic's records using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 293 refill dates listed in Epic, 157 were duplicates, giving a 54% error. After deleting duplicates, the mean (SD) number of refills listed in Epic was 3.6 (2.0) compared with 3.3 (2.0) in pharmacies over a period of 6 months (p < 0.0001). After removing duplicates Epic correctly reported the total number of refills for 30 of the 38 patients (78.9%). Seven of the remaining patients had more refills listed in Epic while 1 patient had more refills dispensed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study indicates that our version of Epic over-reports refills thus limiting assessment of adherence. In contrast, absence of refills in Epic is a clear indication of poor adherence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10849692/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-29.1.45\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-29.1.45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们通常会致电患者的药房以获取续药记录,从而评估吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)的依从性。本项目的目的是确定 Epic 的配药历史记录中列出的 ICS(含或不含长效β受体激动剂)续药历史记录的准确性:我们对 61 名患者进行了评估,并使用了符合以下标准的 38 名患者的数据:1)接受过 UF 小儿重症哮喘门诊的治疗;2)在患者最后一次就诊前 6 个月内服用过相同剂量的 ICS 产品;3)最后一次电子发送 ICS 处方的药房提供了数据。我们致电药房,以获得其补药记录的口头报告。然后,我们使用 Wilcoxon 配对符号秩检验比较了报告的续药数量和 Epic 记录中列出的数量:在 Epic 列出的 293 个补液日期中,有 157 个是重复的,误差为 54%。删除重复日期后,Epic 中列出的平均(标清)续笔日期为 3.6 (2.0),而药房在 6 个月内列出的续笔日期为 3.3 (2.0)(p < 0.0001)。去除重复数据后,Epic 正确报告了 38 位患者中 30 位(78.9%)的续药总数。其余患者中有 7 名患者在 Epic 中列出了更多的笔芯,而 1 名患者则配发了更多的笔芯:这项研究表明,我们的 Epic 版本过多地报告了补药情况,从而限制了对依从性的评估。与此相反,Epic 中没有笔芯则明确表明依从性较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determining Adherence to Inhaled Corticosteroids From the Epic Electronic Medical Record.

Objective: Often we call the patient's pharmacy to obtain a refill history to assess inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) adherence. The purpose of this project was to determine the accuracy of refill histories for ICS (with or without long-acting beta agonist) listed in Epic's Medication Dispense History.

Methods: We evaluated 61 patients and used data from 38 who met the following criteria: 1) under the care of the UF Pediatric Severe Asthma Clinic; 2) taking the same dose of the same ICS product for 6 months before the patient's last clinic visit; and 3) having data available from the pharmacy where the last ICS prescription was electronically sent. We called the pharmacies to obtain a verbal report of their refill record. Then, we compared the number of refills reported to the number listed in Epic's records using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

Results: Of the 293 refill dates listed in Epic, 157 were duplicates, giving a 54% error. After deleting duplicates, the mean (SD) number of refills listed in Epic was 3.6 (2.0) compared with 3.3 (2.0) in pharmacies over a period of 6 months (p < 0.0001). After removing duplicates Epic correctly reported the total number of refills for 30 of the 38 patients (78.9%). Seven of the remaining patients had more refills listed in Epic while 1 patient had more refills dispensed.

Conclusion: This study indicates that our version of Epic over-reports refills thus limiting assessment of adherence. In contrast, absence of refills in Epic is a clear indication of poor adherence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics is the official journal of the Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy Group. JPPT is a peer-reviewed multi disciplinary journal that is devoted to promoting the safe and effective use of medications in infants and children. To this end, the journal publishes practical information for all practitioners who provide care to pediatric patients. Each issue includes review articles, original clinical investigations, case reports, editorials, and other information relevant to pediatric medication therapy. The Journal focuses all work on issues related to the practice of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics. The scope of content includes pharmacotherapy, extemporaneous compounding, dosing, methods of medication administration, medication error prevention, and legislative issues. The Journal will contain original research, review articles, short subjects, case reports, clinical investigations, editorials, and news from such organizations as the Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy Group, the FDA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and so on.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信