The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects on health care resource utilization of a network of microcomputer workstations for writing all inpatient orders. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Inpatient internal medicine service of an urban public hospital. SUBJECTS: A total of 5219 internal medicine patients and the 68 teams of house officers, medical students, and faculty internists who cared for them. INTERVENTION: Microcomputer workstations, linked to a comprehensive electronic medical record system, for writing all inpatient orders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total inpatient charges for each admission and charges for specific categories of orders. A time-motion study of selected interns assessed the ordering system's time consumption. RESULTS: Intervention teams generated charges that were $887 (12.7%) lower per admission than did control teams (P = .02). Significant reductions (P < .05) were demonstrated separately for bed charges, diagnostic test charges, and drug charges. Reductions of similar proportion and statistical significance were found for hospital costs. The mean length of stay was 0.89 day shorter for intervention resident teams (P = .11). Interns in the intervention group spent an average of 33 minutes longer (5.5 minutes per patient) during a 10-hour observation period writing orders than did interns in the control group (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A network of microcomputer workstations for writing all inpatient orders significantly lowered patient charges and hospital costs. This would amount to savings of more than $3 million in charges annually for this hospital's medicine service and potentially tens of billions of dollars nationwide. However, the system required more physician time than did the paper charts. Research at other sites and system advances to reduce time requirements are warranted.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Chaudhry, B., Wang, J., Wu, S., Maglione, M., Mojica, W., Roth, E., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125 · Cited by 3,159
Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K. J., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., & Haynes, R. B. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 · Cited by 2,936
Bates, D. W. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1311 · Cited by 2,107
Kaushal, R., Shojania, K. G., & Bates, D. W. (2003) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.163.12.1409 · Cited by 30
The Impact of Computerized Physician Order Entry on Medication Error Prevention
Bates, D. W., Teich, J. M., Lee, J., Seger, D., Kuperman, G. J., Ma'Luf, N., Boyle, D., & Leape, L. (1999) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1999.00660313 · Cited by 1,260
Metadata
- Authors
- Tierney, W. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1993-01-20
- Volume
- 269
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 379-383
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4240695485
- Cited by
- 557
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 84.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.269.3.379
- The paper
- Tierney, W. M. (1993). Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations. Effects on resource utilization. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.269.3.379
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.