Use of order sets in inpatient computerized provider order entry systems: a comparative analysis of usage patterns at seven sites

Adam Wright, Joshua C Feblowitz, Justine E Pang, James D Carpenter, Michael A Krall, Blackford Middleton, Dean F Sittig, Adam Wright, Joshua C Feblowitz, Justine E Pang, James D Carpenter, Michael A Krall, Blackford Middleton, Dean F Sittig

Abstract

Background: Many computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems include the ability to create electronic order sets: collections of clinically related orders grouped by purpose. Order sets promise to make CPOE systems more efficient, improve care quality and increase adherence to evidence-based guidelines. However, the development and implementation of order sets can be expensive and time-consuming and limited literature exists about their utilization.

Methods: Based on analysis of order set usage logs from a diverse purposive sample of seven sites with commercially and internally developed inpatient CPOE systems, we developed an original order set classification system. Order sets were categorized across seven non-mutually exclusive axes: admission/discharge/transfer (ADT), perioperative, condition-specific, task-specific, service-specific, convenience, and personal. In addition, 731 unique subtypes were identified within five axes: four in ADT (S=4), three in perioperative, 144 in condition-specific, 513 in task-specific, and 67 in service-specific.

Results: Order sets (n=1914) were used a total of 676,142 times at the participating sites during a one-year period. ADT and perioperative order sets accounted for 27.6% and 24.2% of usage respectively. Peripartum/labor, chest pain/acute coronary syndrome/myocardial infarction and diabetes order sets accounted for 51.6% of condition-specific usage. Insulin, angiography/angioplasty and arthroplasty order sets accounted for 19.4% of task-specific usage. Emergency/trauma, obstetrics/gynecology/labor delivery and anesthesia accounted for 32.4% of service-specific usage. Overall, the top 20% of order sets accounted for 90.1% of all usage. Additional salient patterns are identified and described.

Conclusion: We observed recurrent patterns in order set usage across multiple sites as well as meaningful variations between sites. Vendors and institutional developers should identify high-value order set types through concrete data analysis in order to optimize the resources devoted to development and implementation.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sample order set from BICS (Brigham Integrated Computing System)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative distribution of order set usage by site

References

    1. Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. Jama. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1311–6.
    1. van Rosse F, Maat B, Rademaker CM, van Vught AJ, Egberts AC, Bollen CW. The effect of computerized physician order entry on medication prescription errors and clinical outcome in pediatric and intensive care: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2009 Apr;123(4):1184–90.
    1. Holdsworth MT, Fichtl RE, Raisch DW, et al. Impact of computerized prescriber order entry on the incidence of adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. Pediatrics. 2007 Nov;120(5):1058–66.
    1. Kaushal R, Jha AK, Franz C, et al. Return on investment for a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 May-Jun;13(3):261–6.
    1. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):585–600.
    1. Chan J, Shojania KG, Easty AC, Etchells EE. Does user-centred design affect the efficiency, usability and safety of CPOE order sets? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 May 1;18(3):276–81.
    1. Santolin CJ, Boyer LS. Change of care for patients with acute myocardial infarctions through algorithm and standardized physician order sets. Critical pathways in cardiology. 2004 Jun;3(2):79–82.
    1. Micek ST, Roubinian N, Heuring T, et al. Before-after study of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. Critical care medicine. 2006 Nov;34(11):2707–13.
    1. Ballard DJ, Ogola G, Fleming NS, et al. The Impact of Standardized Order Sets on Quality and Financial Outcomes (Vol. 2: Culture and Redesign) 2008 Aug; [cited March 31, 2011]; Available from: .
    1. McAlearney AS, Chisolm D, Veneris S, Rich D, Kelleher K. Utilization of evidence-based computerized order sets in pediatrics. International journal of medical informatics. 2006 Jul;75(7):501–12.
    1. Ozdas A, Speroff T, Waitman LR, Ozbolt J, Butler J, Miller RA. Integrating “best of care” protocols into clinicians’ workflow via care provider order entry: impact on quality-of-care indicators for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(2):188–96.
    1. Fishbane S, Niederman MS, Daly C, et al. The impact of standardized order sets and intensive clinical case management on outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. Archives of internal medicine. 2007 Aug 13–27;167(15):1664–9.
    1. Fleming NS, Ogola G, Ballard DJ. Implementing a standardized order set for community-acquired pneumonia: impact on mortality and cost. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources. 2009 Aug;35(8):414–21.
    1. Payne TH, Hoey PJ, Nichol P, Lovis C. Preparation and use of preconstructed orders, order sets, and order menus in a computerized provider order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Jul-Aug;10(4):322–9.
    1. Meleskie J, Eby D. Adaptation and implementation of standardized order sets in a network of multi-hospital corporations in rural Ontario. Healthcare quarterly (Toronto, Ont. 2009;12(1):78–83.
    1. Rothschild AS, Lehmann HP. Information retrieval performance of probabilistically generated, problem-specific computerized provider order entry pick-lists: a pilot study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 May-Jun;12(3):322–30.
    1. Wright A, Sittig DF. Automated development of order sets and corollary orders by data mining in an ambulatory computerized physician order entry system. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium; 2006. pp. 819–23.
    1. McClay JC, Campbell JR, Parker C, Hrabak K, Tu SW, Abarbanel R. Structuring order sets for interoperable distribution. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium; 2006. pp. 549–53.
    1. Middleton B. The clinical decision support consortium. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2009;150:26–30.
    1. Wright A, Sittig DF, Carpenter JD, Krall MA, Pang JE, Middleton B. Order sets in computerized physician order entry systems: an analysis of seven sites. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings/AMIA Symposium. 2010;2010:892–6.
    1. Services CfMM. FY 2010 Final Rule Home Page. 2011 [cited 2011 January 6]; Available from: .
    1. Wright A, Bates DW. Distribution of Problems, Medications and Lab Results in Electronic Health Records: The Pareto Principle at Work. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2010;1(1):32–7.
    1. Wright A, Sittig DF, Ash JS, et al. Governance for clinical decision support: case studies and recommended practices from leading institutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Mar 1;18(2):187–94.
    1. Wright A, Bates DW, Middleton B, et al. Creating and sharing clinical decision support content with Web 2.0: Issues and examples. Journal of biomedical informatics. 2009 Apr;42(2):334–46.
    1. I-Form Library. [cited April 16, 2011]; Available from:

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere