Translation and interpretation: The hidden processes and problems revealed by computerized physician order entry systems
Abstract
Even the most basic computerized physician order entry systems can reduce medication error rates, improve the quality, and decrease the costs of medical care. Routine tasks such as decryption, triage, transcription, and transmission are eliminated or streamlined, reducing the source and likelihood of human errors. Translation of physician intent into actual orders requires more advanced computer systems with sophisticated algorithms built-in. Further, adding an interpretative function to understand and transmit orders that could have subtly different meanings will be challenging. Extensive analysis and the cooperative efforts of multidisciplinary teams will be required to add incremental value to computerized physician order entry systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Emerging evidence suggests that health information technology may cause new patient safety concerns and other unintended consequences due to usability issues, disruptions of clinical processes, and unsafe workarounds.
“However, emerging evidence suggests that HIT may cause new patient safety concerns and other unintended consequences due to usability issues, disruptions of clinical processes, and unsafe workarounds to circumvent technology-related constraints.2–16”
From An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns (2014) · cites this paper as [6]
Technology can introduce new uncertainties and patient safety risks by disrupting established work patterns, creating new risks in practice, and encouraging workarounds.
“research suggests that technology may lead to new uncertainties and risks for patient safety through disrupting established work patterns, creating new risks in practice, and encouraging workarounds.”
From Exploring the sociotechnical intersection of patient safety and electronic health record implementation (2014) · cites this paper as [6]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Coleman, R. W.
- Affiliations
- Lifespan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Coleman, Reid W.
- Venue
- Journal of Critical Care
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 279-282
- ISSN
- 0883-9441 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989620925
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Critical Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Keywords
- computerized physician order entry, medication errors, clinical decision support, triage, human error reduction, multidisciplinary collaboration, clinical information systems
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Computers, Handwriting, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Medication Systems, Hospital, Drug Prescriptions, Software Design, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Medical Errors
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
