Dataset Information

Effect of Restriction of the Number of Concurrently Open Records in an Electronic Health Record on Wrong-Patient Order Errors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Recommendations in the United States suggest limiting the number of patient records displayed in an electronic health record (EHR) to 1 at a time, although little evidence supports this recommendation.

Objective

To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders in an EHR configuration limiting clinicians to 1 record vs allowing up to 4 records opened concurrently.

Design, setting, and participants

This randomized clinical trial included 3356 clinicians at a large health system in New York and was conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 in emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings.

Interventions

Clinicians were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an EHR configuration limiting to 1 patient record open at a time (restricted; n = 1669) or allowing up to 4 records open concurrently (unrestricted; n = 1687).

Main outcomes and measures

The unit of analysis was the order session, a series of orders placed by a clinician for a single patient. The primary outcome was order sessions that included 1 or more wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure (an electronic query that identifies orders placed for a patient, retracted, and then reordered shortly thereafter by the same clinician for a different patient).

Results

Among the 3356 clinicians who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [12.5] years; mean [SD] experience at study site, 6.5 [6.0] years; 1894 females [56.4%]), all provided order data and were included in the analysis. The study included 12 140 298 orders, in 4 486 631 order sessions, placed for 543 490 patients. There was no significant difference in wrong-patient order sessions per 100 000 in the restricted vs unrestricted group, respectively, overall (90.7 vs 88.0; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]; P = .60) or in any setting (ED: 157.8 vs 161.3, OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83-1.20], P = .96; inpatient: 185.6 vs 185.1, OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .86; or outpatient: 7.9 vs 8.2, OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28], P = .71). The effect did not differ among settings (P for interaction = .99). In the unrestricted group overall, 66.2% of the order sessions were completed with 1 record open, including 34.5% of ED, 53.7% of inpatient, and 83.4% of outpatient order sessions.

Conclusions and relevance

A strategy that limited clinicians to 1 EHR patient record open compared with a strategy that allowed up to 4 records open concurrently did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient order errors. However, clinicians in the unrestricted group placed most orders with a single record open, limiting the power of the study to determine whether reducing the number of records open when placing orders reduces the risk of wrong-patient order errors.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02876588.

SUBMITTER: Adelman JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6518341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAs health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a total of 136?815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.ExposuresAccess to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.ResultsOf 136?815 patients who received survey invitations, 29?656 (21.7%) responded and 22?889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ?4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

Project description:BackgroundPrescribing error represent a significant source of preventable harm to patients. Prescribing errors at discharge, including omission of pre-admission medications (PAM), are particularly harmful as they frequently propagate following discharge. This study assesses the impact of an educational intervention and introduction of an electronic patient record (EPR) in the same centre on omission of PAM at discharge using a pragmatic design. A survey of newly qualified doctors is used to contextualise findings.MethodsDischarge prescriptions and discharge summaries were reviewed at discharge, and compared to admission medicine lists, using a paper-based chart system. Discrepancies were noted, using Health Information and Quality Authority guidelines for discharge prescribing. An educational intervention was conducted. Further review of discharge prescriptions and discharge summaries took place. Following introduction of an EPR, review of discharge summaries and discharge prescriptions was repeated. A survey was administered to recently qualified doctors (interns), and analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.ResultsOmission of PAM as prescribed or discontinued items at discharge occurs frequently. An educational intervention did not significantly change prescribing error rates (U = 1255.5, p = 0.206). EPR introduction did significantly reduce omission of PAM on discharge prescribing (U = 694, p < 0.001), however there was also a reduction in the rate of deliberate discontinuation of PAM at discharge (U = 1237.5, p = 0.007). Survey results demonstrated that multiple sources are required to develop a discharge prescription. Time pressure, access to documentation and lack of admission medicine reconciliation are frequently cited causes of discharge prescribing error.ConclusionThis study verified passive educational interventions alone do not improve discharge prescribing. Introduction of EPR improved discharge prescribing, but negatively impacted deliberate discontinuation of PAM at discharge. This is attributable to reduced access to key sources of information used in formulating discharge prescriptions, and separation of the discontinuation function from the prescribing function on the EPR discharge application.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The use of electronic medical record (EMR) data is necessary to improve clinical research efficiency. However, it is not easy to identify patients who meet research eligibility criteria and collect the necessary information from EMRs because the data collection process must integrate various techniques, including the development of a data warehouse and translation of eligibility criteria into computable criteria. This research aimed to demonstrate an electronic medical records retrieval system (ERS) and an example of a hospital-based cohort study that identified both patients and exposure with an ERS. We also evaluated the feasibility and usefulness of the method. DESIGN:The system was developed and evaluated. PARTICIPANTS:In total, 800 000 cases of clinical information stored in EMRs at our hospital were used. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The feasibility and usefulness of the ERS, the method to convert text from eligible criteria to computable criteria, and a confirmation method to increase research data accuracy. RESULTS:To comprehensively and efficiently collect information from patients participating in clinical research, we developed an ERS. To create the ERS database, we designed a multidimensional data model optimised for patient identification. We also devised practical methods to translate narrative eligibility criteria into computable parameters. We applied the system to an actual hospital-based cohort study performed at our hospital and converted the test results into computable criteria. Based on this information, we identified eligible patients and extracted data necessary for confirmation by our investigators and for statistical analyses with our ERS. CONCLUSIONS:We propose a pragmatic methodology to identify patients from EMRs who meet clinical research eligibility criteria. Our ERS allowed for the efficient collection of information on the eligibility of a given patient, reduced the labour required from the investigators and improved the reliability of the results.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is the most prevalent risk factor for mortality globally. Uncontrolled hypertension is associated with excess morbidity and mortality, and nearly one-half of individuals with hypertension do not have the condition under control. Data from electronic health record (EHR) systems may be useful for community hypertension surveillance, filling a gap in local public health departments' community health assessments and supporting the public health data modernization initiatives currently underway. To identify patients with hypertension, computable phenotypes are required. These phenotypes leverage available data elements-such as vitals measurements and medications-to identify patients diagnosed with hypertension. However, there are multiple methodologies for creating a phenotype, and the identification of which method most accurately reflects real-world prevalence rates is needed to support data modernization initiatives.ObjectiveThis study sought to assess the comparability of 6 different EHR-based hypertension prevalence estimates with estimates from a national survey. Each of the prevalence estimates was created using a different computable phenotype. The overarching goal is to identify which phenotypes most closely align with nationally accepted estimations.MethodsUsing the 6 different EHR-based computable phenotypes, we calculated hypertension prevalence estimates for Marion County, Indiana, for the period from 2014 to 2015. We extracted hypertension rates from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) for the same period. We used the two 1-sided t test (TOST) to test equivalence between BRFSS- and EHR-based prevalence estimates. The TOST was performed at the overall level as well as stratified by age, gender, and race.ResultsUsing both 80% and 90% CIs, the TOST analysis resulted in 2 computable phenotypes demonstrating rough equivalence to BRFSS estimates. Variation in performance was noted across phenotypes as well as demographics. TOST with 80% CIs demonstrated that the phenotypes had less variance compared to BRFSS estimates within subpopulations, particularly those related to racial categories. Overall, less variance occurred on phenotypes that included vitals measurements.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that certain EHR-derived prevalence estimates may serve as rough substitutes for population-based survey estimates. These outcomes demonstrate the importance of critically assessing which data elements to include in EHR-based computer phenotypes. Using comprehensive data sources, containing complete clinical data as well as data representative of the population, are crucial to producing robust estimates of chronic disease. As public health departments look toward data modernization activities, the EHR may serve to assist in more timely, locally representative estimates for chronic disease prevalence.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHR) are a key tool in managing and storing patients' information. Currently, there are over 50 open source EHR systems available. Functionality and usability are important factors for determining the success of any system. These factors are often a direct reflection of the domain knowledge and developers' motivations. However, few published studies have focused on the characteristics of free and open source software (F/OSS) EHR systems and none to date have discussed the motivation, knowledge background, and demographic characteristics of the developers involved in open source EHR projects.ObjectiveThis study analyzed the characteristics of prevailing F/OSS EHR systems and aimed to provide an understanding of the motivation, knowledge background, and characteristics of the developers.MethodsThis study identified F/OSS EHR projects on SourceForge and other websites from May to July 2014. Projects were classified and characterized by license type, downloads, programming languages, spoken languages, project age, development status, supporting materials, top downloads by country, and whether they were "certified" EHRs. Health care F/OSS developers were also surveyed using an online survey.ResultsAt the time of the assessment, we uncovered 54 open source EHR projects, but only four of them had been successfully certified under the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC Health IT) Certification Program. In the majority of cases, the open source EHR software was downloaded by users in the United States (64.07%, 148,666/232,034), underscoring that there is a significant interest in EHR open source applications in the United States. A survey of EHR open source developers was conducted and a total of 103 developers responded to the online questionnaire. The majority of EHR F/OSS developers (65.3%, 66/101) are participating in F/OSS projects as part of a paid activity and only 25.7% (26/101) of EHR F/OSS developers are, or have been, health care providers in their careers. In addition, 45% (45/99) of developers do not work in the health care field.ConclusionThe research presented in this study highlights some challenges that may be hindering the future of health care F/OSS. A minority of developers have been health care professionals, and only 55% (54/99) work in the health care field. This undoubtedly limits the ability of functional design of F/OSS EHR systems from being a competitive advantage over prevailing commercial EHR systems. Open source software seems to be a significant interest to many; however, given that only four F/OSS EHR systems are ONC-certified, this interest is unlikely to yield significant adoption of these systems in the United States. Although the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) act was responsible for a substantial infusion of capital into the EHR marketplace, the lack of a corporate entity in most F/OSS EHR projects translates to a marginal capacity to market the respective F/OSS system and to navigate certification. This likely has further disadvantaged F/OSS EHR adoption in the United States.