CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Electronic Health Records SystemsInnovations in Medical EducationHospital Admissions and Outcomes

The Effect of Computerized Provider Order Entry on Medical Student Clerkship Experiences

Knight, A. M.·2005·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1197/jamia.m1839
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe medical students' attitudes toward placing orders during training, and the effect of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) on their learning experiences. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled study of all 143 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine students who began the Basic Medicine clerkship between March 2003 and April 2004 at one of three teaching hospitals: one using CPOE, one paper orders, and one that began using CPOE midway through this study. MEASUREMENTS: Survey of students at the start and after the first month of the clerkship. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of students responded. Students expressed a desire to place 100% of orders for their patients. Ninety-five percent of students believed that placing orders helps students learn what tests and treatments patients need. Eighty-four percent reported that being unavailable due to conferences and teaching sessions was a significant barrier to participating in the ordering process. Students at hospitals using CPOE reported placing significantly fewer of their patients' follow-up orders compared to students at hospitals using paper orders (25% vs. 50%, p < 0.01) and were more likely to report that their resident or intern did not want them to enter orders (40% vs. 16%, p < 0.01). Comparisons of students at hospitals using CPOE to each other showed that these differences were attributable to one of the hospitals. Thirty-two percent of students at both hospitals using CPOE reported that the extra length of time required for housestaff to review their orders in the computer was a significant barrier. CONCLUSION: Hospitals need to ensure that the educational potential of medical students' clinical experiences is maximized when implementing CPOE.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1839

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Embedding clinical decision support within CPOE systems may increase clinician-users' access to educational material and may affect learning and retention.

    “Although limited experience exists, embedding clinical decision support (CDS) within CPOE systems may increase clinician-users' access to educational material 30,31 and may affect learning and retention.32”

    From Types of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry (2006) · cites this paper as [32]

    Citation 32 is attached to the claim that CPOE may affect learning and retention, not to the preceding claim about access to educational material. The Discussion reports that CPOE may affect medical students’ learning experiences, but the paper does not address retention or establish the effect for clinician-users generally. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tierney WM, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ, Wolinsky FD. Medi- cal students' and housestaff's opinions of computerized order- writing. Acad Med. 1994;69:386-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Knight, A. M.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Knight, A. M.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-05-19
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
554-560
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
DOI
10.1197/jamia.m1839
OpenAlex
W1492739470
Cited by
34
References
50
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (M01RR002719, M0-1-RR-02719)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
computerized physician order entry, medical clerkship, clinical decision-making, order entry, medical education, barriers to student participation, resident supervision, hospital information systems
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Clinical Clerkship, Data Collection, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Prospective Studies, User-Computer Interface, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

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