新西兰医院计算机化供应商订单输入系统对处方错误的脆弱性:与其他系统的比较研究。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Milan Sundermann, Lorna Pairman, Olivia Clendon, Dali Fan, Matthew Doogue, Paul K L Chin
{"title":"新西兰医院计算机化供应商订单输入系统对处方错误的脆弱性:与其他系统的比较研究。","authors":"Milan Sundermann, Lorna Pairman, Olivia Clendon, Dali Fan, Matthew Doogue, Paul K L Chin","doi":"10.1111/imj.70053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The computerised provider order entry (CPOE) system MedChart is going to be the national CPOE system in New Zealand's public hospitals.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We tested the vulnerability of our health region configuration of MedChart and its clinical decision support (CDS) to prescription ordering errors and compared it to other CPOE systems. We also tested whether ordering workflow influenced system vulnerability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten testers completed 16 published scenarios simulating ordering errors in a training environment of MedChart. The difficulty of completing each scenario was recorded using a five-point Likert scale (1 = easily, 5 = impossible). Difficulty scores were summarised for each scenario. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on whether testers ordered sequentially or concurrently for scenarios involving two prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MedChart best protected (difficulty score 5) against omission and mixed frequency errors. Worst protections (difficulty score 1) were against drug-drug interaction, duplicate ordering error, wrong frequency for medicine form error, and under dosing error scenarios. Compared to other CPOE systems, MedChart provided better protection against more than half of the scenarios, but similar vulnerabilities were identified. Sequential versus concurrent ordering workflows significantly altered system protections for only one test scenario involving duplicate enoxaparin orders (median 3.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings highlight areas for improvement in MedChart system configuration. Different ordering workflows require consideration when implementing CDS. Publication of CPOE testing using standardised tools could facilitate comparison of safety performance between institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerability of a New Zealand hospital computerised provider order entry system to prescribing error: a comparative study with other systems.\",\"authors\":\"Milan Sundermann, Lorna Pairman, Olivia Clendon, Dali Fan, Matthew Doogue, Paul K L Chin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/imj.70053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The computerised provider order entry (CPOE) system MedChart is going to be the national CPOE system in New Zealand's public hospitals.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We tested the vulnerability of our health region configuration of MedChart and its clinical decision support (CDS) to prescription ordering errors and compared it to other CPOE systems. We also tested whether ordering workflow influenced system vulnerability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten testers completed 16 published scenarios simulating ordering errors in a training environment of MedChart. The difficulty of completing each scenario was recorded using a five-point Likert scale (1 = easily, 5 = impossible). Difficulty scores were summarised for each scenario. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on whether testers ordered sequentially or concurrently for scenarios involving two prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MedChart best protected (difficulty score 5) against omission and mixed frequency errors. Worst protections (difficulty score 1) were against drug-drug interaction, duplicate ordering error, wrong frequency for medicine form error, and under dosing error scenarios. Compared to other CPOE systems, MedChart provided better protection against more than half of the scenarios, but similar vulnerabilities were identified. Sequential versus concurrent ordering workflows significantly altered system protections for only one test scenario involving duplicate enoxaparin orders (median 3.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings highlight areas for improvement in MedChart system configuration. Different ordering workflows require consideration when implementing CDS. Publication of CPOE testing using standardised tools could facilitate comparison of safety performance between institutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.70053\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.70053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:计算机化医疗服务提供者订单输入(CPOE)系统MedChart将成为新西兰公立医院的国家CPOE系统。目的:我们测试MedChart的卫生区域配置及其临床决策支持(CDS)对处方订购错误的脆弱性,并将其与其他CPOE系统进行比较。我们还测试了排序工作流是否会影响系统的脆弱性。方法:10名测试者在MedChart的训练环境中完成16个公开的模拟排序错误的场景。完成每个场景的难度使用五点李克特量表(1 =容易,5 =不可能)进行记录。每个场景的难度分数都是总结出来的。亚组分析是根据测试者是顺序订购还是同时订购涉及两种处方的情况进行的。结果:MedChart对遗漏和混合频率错误保护最好(难度评分5)。最差的保护(难度分1)是防止药物相互作用、重复顺序错误、药物形式错误的错误频率和剂量错误情况。与其他CPOE系统相比,MedChart对一半以上的情况提供了更好的保护,但也发现了类似的漏洞。顺序订购与并发订购工作流程仅在一个涉及重复依诺肝素订单的测试场景中显著改变了系统保护(中位数3.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004)。结论:这些发现突出了MedChart系统配置需要改进的领域。在实现CDS时需要考虑不同的排序工作流。公布使用标准化工具的CPOE测试结果,有助于比较机构之间的安全性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vulnerability of a New Zealand hospital computerised provider order entry system to prescribing error: a comparative study with other systems.

Background: The computerised provider order entry (CPOE) system MedChart is going to be the national CPOE system in New Zealand's public hospitals.

Aims: We tested the vulnerability of our health region configuration of MedChart and its clinical decision support (CDS) to prescription ordering errors and compared it to other CPOE systems. We also tested whether ordering workflow influenced system vulnerability.

Methods: Ten testers completed 16 published scenarios simulating ordering errors in a training environment of MedChart. The difficulty of completing each scenario was recorded using a five-point Likert scale (1 = easily, 5 = impossible). Difficulty scores were summarised for each scenario. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on whether testers ordered sequentially or concurrently for scenarios involving two prescriptions.

Results: MedChart best protected (difficulty score 5) against omission and mixed frequency errors. Worst protections (difficulty score 1) were against drug-drug interaction, duplicate ordering error, wrong frequency for medicine form error, and under dosing error scenarios. Compared to other CPOE systems, MedChart provided better protection against more than half of the scenarios, but similar vulnerabilities were identified. Sequential versus concurrent ordering workflows significantly altered system protections for only one test scenario involving duplicate enoxaparin orders (median 3.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004).

Conclusions: These findings highlight areas for improvement in MedChart system configuration. Different ordering workflows require consideration when implementing CDS. Publication of CPOE testing using standardised tools could facilitate comparison of safety performance between institutions.

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
Internal Medicine Journal
Internal Medicine Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
600
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.
×
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