Cited by 144Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

The anatomy of decision support during inpatient care provider order entry (CPOE): Empirical observations from a decade of CPOE experience at Vanderbilt

Open access
Miller, Randolph A., Waitman, Lemuel R., Chen, Sutin, Rosenbloom, S. Trent·2005·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

The authors describe a pragmatic approach to the introduction of clinical decision support at the point of care, based on a decade of experience in developing and evolving Vanderbilt's inpatient "WizOrder" care provider order entry (CPOE) system. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to interject CPOE-based decision support features that restructure clinical workflows, deliver focused relevant educational materials, and influence how care is delivered to patients. From their empirical observations, the authors have developed a generic model for decision support within inpatient CPOE systems. They believe that the model's utility extends beyond Vanderbilt, because it is based on characteristics of end-user workflows and on decision support considerations that are common to a variety of inpatient settings and CPOE systems. The specific approach to implementing a given clinical decision support feature within a CPOE system should involve evaluation along three axes: what type of intervention to create (for which the authors describe 4 general categories); when to introduce the intervention into the user's workflow (for which the authors present 7 categories), and how disruptive, during use of the system, the intervention might be to end-users' workflows (for which the authors describe 6 categories). Framing decision support in this manner may help both developers and clinical end-users plan future alterations to their systems when needs for new decision support features arise.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2005.08.009

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 102 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. McDonald CJ. Computers. JAMA 1989;261(19):2834-6.
  2. Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. Patient safety and computerized medication ordering at Brigham and WomenÕs Hospi- tal. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2001;27(10):509-21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, R. A., Waitman, L. R., Chen, S., & Rosenbloom, S. T.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Randolph A.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-12
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
469-485
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098595796
Cited by
144
References
102
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
18.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01lm007995-06, 5r01lm006226-03)
  • School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (K22-LM-08576, R01-LM-007995, K22LM008576, LM06226, R01-LM-06226)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
clinical decision support, computerized physician order entry, inpatient care, point-of-care intervention, clinical workflow, workflow disruption, clinical teaching
MeSH terms
Admitting Department, Hospital, Decision Making, Organizational, Humans, Inpatients, Patient Education as Topic, Personnel, Hospital, Professional-Patient Relations, Tennessee

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