Biyernes, Mayo 4, 2012, 3:26 AM
INSIGHT ON "REVIEWING THE IMPACT OF COMPUTERIZED PROVIDER ORDER ENTRY ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES: THE QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS"
One of the evidences of the integration of technology in the healthcare setting is the computerized provider order entry where medical practitioners electronically enters their instructions and orders for the treatment of the patient. The article claimed that the use of CPOE is central to current efforts at improving clinical care. I think that CPOE can improve clinical care by preventing practice errors like medication errors to happen. There were some issues about factors which lead to errors in the patient care, one of which, if I remember it right, is the readability of the physician's penmanship. Plenty of times have I heard that doctors write like anyone can understand what they wrote, they don't write legibly, hence, some health care providers commit errors because of having misunderstood the handwritten order. We can incorporate here the factor that has become a great initiative why electronic systems and informatics are integrated in the healthcare setting- PATIENT'S SAFETY. In addition, the article has claimed that CPOE is important to the practical decision of implementation and future design efforts.
They did a systematic search about CPOE. In the process, resources and reviews from PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, INSPEC, and PsychInfo databases from the years 1987–mid 2010 in English only were included. Reviews which focused on CPOE, electronic ordering, Electronic Health Record, or Health Information Technology were included. They assessed the quality of which by using systemic crtieria developed by Oxman and Guyatt, QUOROM, and PRISMA who conducted the reviews independently. With these, I am not aware as to how they conducted the reviews to study the effectiveness of CPOE.
Based on the article, the search process yielded 185 initial unique references with 13 final reviews meeting the criteria. If I understand it right, QUOROM/PRISMA got the highest rating in overall quality, averaged 63% completion. How PRISMA/QUOROM did the search process wasn't stated so I don't know how they were evaluated.
They did a systematic search about CPOE. In the process, resources and reviews from PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, INSPEC, and PsychInfo databases from the years 1987–mid 2010 in English only were included. Reviews which focused on CPOE, electronic ordering, Electronic Health Record, or Health Information Technology were included. They assessed the quality of which by using systemic crtieria developed by Oxman and Guyatt, QUOROM, and PRISMA who conducted the reviews independently. With these, I am not aware as to how they conducted the reviews to study the effectiveness of CPOE.
Based on the article, the search process yielded 185 initial unique references with 13 final reviews meeting the criteria. If I understand it right, QUOROM/PRISMA got the highest rating in overall quality, averaged 63% completion. How PRISMA/QUOROM did the search process wasn't stated so I don't know how they were evaluated.
ARTICLE:
Academic OneFile
[Click on the title] Reviewing the impact of computerized provider order entry on clinical outcomes: The quality of systematic reviews
Accessed at International Journal of medical informatics via AcademicOneFIile link: www.ijmijournal.com/article/S1386-5056(12)00028-7/abstract
0 comments |
LEAVE A COMMENT