Cited by 17Electronic Health Records SystemsHospital Admissions and OutcomesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Computerized Prescriber Order Entry Implementation in a Physician Assistant–Managed Hematology and Oncology Inpatient Service: Effects on Workflow and Task Switching

Open access
Hanauer, David A., Zheng, Kai, Commiskey, Elaine L., Duck, Mary G., Choi, Sung W., Blayney, Douglas W.·2013·Journal of Oncology Practice

Abstract

Purpose Little is known about the impact of computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) systems on inpatient hematology/oncology services. The objective of this study was to quantify the impact of an inpatient CPOE implementation on workflow, with an emphasis on ordering and direct patient care time. Methods We conducted a direct-observation time-and-motion study of the provider team of a hematology/oncology inpatient service both before and after CPOE implementation, characterizing workflow into 60 distinct activity categories. The provider team comprised physician assistants supervised by attending physicians. Results were adjusted to account for variations in the census. We also conducted an analysis of computer logs to assess CPOE system usage. Results Study participants were observed for 228.0 hours over 53 observation sessions. There was little change in the proportion of census-adjusted time spent on ordering (10.2% before v 11.4% after) and on direct patient care (50.7% before v 47.8% after). Workflow fragmentation decreased, with providers spending an average of 131.2 seconds on a continuous task before implementation and 218.3 seconds after (P Conclusion CPOE implementation did not negatively affect time available for direct patient care. Workflow fragmentation decreased, which is likely beneficial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jop.2012.000655

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanauer, D. A., Zheng, K., Commiskey, E. L., Duck, M. G., Choi, S. W., & Blayney, D. W.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Journal of Oncology Practice
Published
2013-07
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
e103-e114
ISSN
  • 1554-7477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-469X
OpenAlex
W2107787847
Cited by
17
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Oncology Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K23AI091623)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024986)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
computerized physician order entry, CPOE implementation, physician assistants, clinical workflow, task switching, time and motion study
MeSH terms
Patient Care, Hematology, Humans, Inpatients, Medical Oncology, Physician Assistants, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Medical Order Entry Systems, Workflow

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