电子出院摘要是否包含更完整的用药信息?纸质与电子放电摘要的回顾性分析

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
E. Lehnbom, M. Raban, S. Walter, K. Richardson, J. Westbrook
{"title":"电子出院摘要是否包含更完整的用药信息?纸质与电子放电摘要的回顾性分析","authors":"E. Lehnbom, M. Raban, S. Walter, K. Richardson, J. Westbrook","doi":"10.1177/183335831404300301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Complete, accurate and timely hospital discharge summaries are important for continuity of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic discharge summary system in improving the medication information provided compared to the information in paper discharge summaries. We conducted a retrospective audit of 199 paper and 200 electronic discharge summaries from a 350-bed teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. The completeness of medication information, and whether medication changes during the admission were explained, were assessed. Further, the likelihood of any incomplete information having an impact on continuity of care was assessed. There were 1352 and 1771 medication orders assessed in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. Of these, 90.9% and 93.4% were complete in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. The dose (OR 25.24, 95%CI: 3.41–186.9) and route (OR 8.65, 95%CI: 3.46–21.59) fields of medication orders, were more likely to be complete in electronic as compared with paper discharge summaries. There was no difference for drug frequency (OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.77–1.55). There was no significant improvement in the proportion of incomplete medication orders rated as unclear and likely to impede continuity of care in paper compared with electronic discharge summaries (7.3% vs. 6.5%). Of changes to medication regimen, only medication additions were more likely to be explained in the electronic (n=253, 37.2%) compared to paper (n=104, 14.3%) discharge summaries (OR 3.14; 95%CI: 2.20–4.18). In summary, electronic discharge summaries offer some improvements over paper discharge summaries in terms of the quality of medication information documented. However, explanations of changes to medication regimens remained low, despite this being crucial information. Future efforts should focus on including the rationale for changes to medication regimens in discharge summaries.","PeriodicalId":55068,"journal":{"name":"Health Information Management Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/183335831404300301","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Electronic Discharge Summaries Contain More Complete Medication Information? A Retrospective Analysis of Paper versus Electronic Discharge Summaries\",\"authors\":\"E. Lehnbom, M. Raban, S. Walter, K. Richardson, J. Westbrook\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/183335831404300301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Complete, accurate and timely hospital discharge summaries are important for continuity of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic discharge summary system in improving the medication information provided compared to the information in paper discharge summaries. We conducted a retrospective audit of 199 paper and 200 electronic discharge summaries from a 350-bed teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. The completeness of medication information, and whether medication changes during the admission were explained, were assessed. Further, the likelihood of any incomplete information having an impact on continuity of care was assessed. There were 1352 and 1771 medication orders assessed in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. Of these, 90.9% and 93.4% were complete in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. The dose (OR 25.24, 95%CI: 3.41–186.9) and route (OR 8.65, 95%CI: 3.46–21.59) fields of medication orders, were more likely to be complete in electronic as compared with paper discharge summaries. There was no difference for drug frequency (OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.77–1.55). There was no significant improvement in the proportion of incomplete medication orders rated as unclear and likely to impede continuity of care in paper compared with electronic discharge summaries (7.3% vs. 6.5%). Of changes to medication regimen, only medication additions were more likely to be explained in the electronic (n=253, 37.2%) compared to paper (n=104, 14.3%) discharge summaries (OR 3.14; 95%CI: 2.20–4.18). In summary, electronic discharge summaries offer some improvements over paper discharge summaries in terms of the quality of medication information documented. However, explanations of changes to medication regimens remained low, despite this being crucial information. Future efforts should focus on including the rationale for changes to medication regimens in discharge summaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Information Management Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/183335831404300301\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Information Management Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/183335831404300301\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Information Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/183335831404300301","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

完整、准确和及时的出院总结对护理的连续性很重要。本研究的目的是评估电子出院摘要系统在改善提供的药物信息方面的有效性,与纸质出院摘要信息相比。我们对澳大利亚悉尼一家拥有350个床位的教学医院的199篇论文和200篇电子出院摘要进行了回顾性审核。评估患者用药信息的完整性,以及入院期间用药变化是否得到解释。此外,评估了任何不完整信息对护理连续性产生影响的可能性。纸质出院总结和电子出院总结分别评估了1352条和1771条用药单。其中90.9%以纸质形式完成,93.4%以电子形式完成。用药单的剂量(OR 25.24, 95%CI: 3.41 ~ 186.9)和路径(OR 8.65, 95%CI: 3.46 ~ 21.59)字段,电子格式比纸质格式更完整。用药频次差异无统计学意义(OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.77 ~ 1.55)。与电子出院摘要相比,不完整用药单被认为不清楚且可能妨碍护理连续性的比例没有显著改善(7.3%对6.5%)。对于用药方案的改变,电子出院总结(n=253, 37.2%)比纸质出院总结(n=104, 14.3%)更容易被解释为增加用药(OR 3.14;95%置信区间:2.20—-4.18)。总之,电子出院摘要在记录药物信息的质量方面比纸质出院摘要提供了一些改进。然而,对药物治疗方案变化的解释仍然很低,尽管这是至关重要的信息。未来的工作应侧重于在出院总结中包括改变药物治疗方案的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Electronic Discharge Summaries Contain More Complete Medication Information? A Retrospective Analysis of Paper versus Electronic Discharge Summaries
Complete, accurate and timely hospital discharge summaries are important for continuity of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic discharge summary system in improving the medication information provided compared to the information in paper discharge summaries. We conducted a retrospective audit of 199 paper and 200 electronic discharge summaries from a 350-bed teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. The completeness of medication information, and whether medication changes during the admission were explained, were assessed. Further, the likelihood of any incomplete information having an impact on continuity of care was assessed. There were 1352 and 1771 medication orders assessed in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. Of these, 90.9% and 93.4% were complete in paper and electronic discharge summaries, respectively. The dose (OR 25.24, 95%CI: 3.41–186.9) and route (OR 8.65, 95%CI: 3.46–21.59) fields of medication orders, were more likely to be complete in electronic as compared with paper discharge summaries. There was no difference for drug frequency (OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.77–1.55). There was no significant improvement in the proportion of incomplete medication orders rated as unclear and likely to impede continuity of care in paper compared with electronic discharge summaries (7.3% vs. 6.5%). Of changes to medication regimen, only medication additions were more likely to be explained in the electronic (n=253, 37.2%) compared to paper (n=104, 14.3%) discharge summaries (OR 3.14; 95%CI: 2.20–4.18). In summary, electronic discharge summaries offer some improvements over paper discharge summaries in terms of the quality of medication information documented. However, explanations of changes to medication regimens remained low, despite this being crucial information. Future efforts should focus on including the rationale for changes to medication regimens in discharge summaries.
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
Health Information Management Journal
Health Information Management Journal 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Health Information Management Journal (HIMJ) is the official peer-reviewed research journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia (HIMAA). HIMJ provides a forum for dissemination of original investigations and reviews covering a broad range of topics related to the management and communication of health information including: clinical and administrative health information systems at international, national, hospital and health practice levels; electronic health records; privacy and confidentiality; health classifications and terminologies; health systems, funding and resources management; consumer health informatics; public and population health information management; information technology implementation and evaluation and health information management 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