MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073708458

The impact of computerized provider order entry on nursing practice

2016· dissertation· en· W7073708458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Event (particle physics)Process (computing)PopulationPublic health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Institute of Medicine reported seven thousand deaths annually due to medication errors. It is estimated that two out of one hundred admissions experience a preventable adverse medication event resulting in an average cost of $4,700 per admission, which is $2.8 million dollars annually for a 700 bed hospital (Institute of Medicine, 1999). In Canada, medication related errors were identified as the most common adverse event (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2007). A medication error is “any error that occurs during the process of history taking, ordering, dispensing, administering and surveillance of a medication regardless of whether harm occurred to the patient or if there was potential harm (Eslami, Abu Hanna, & de Keizer, 2007; Ong, 2007). Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) can play a vital role in the prevention of medication errors in the drug ordering stage. It was reported that the occurrence of Adverse Drug Events (ADE) was decreased by fifty-five percent with the addition of CPOE system (Berger & Kichak, 2004). However, the literature review on CPOE impact is heavily focused on the physicians’ perspective (Eslami et al., 2007; Reckmann, Westbrook, Koh, Lo, & Day, 2009; ). Nurses play a significant role in the medication process, as traditionally, nurses are involved in all the medication process stages. Research on the impact of CPOE in the entire medication process is still lacking (Househ, Ahmad, Alshaikh, & Alsuweed, 2013). Understanding the perspective of nurses on the impact of CPOE in their work will increase awareness and understanding of CPOE use among health care professionals and health informaticians. This research adopts a grounded theory approach to explore the question of “how do nurses perceive the impact of CPOE on the medication process and on collaborative practice?” Ten participants were interviewed and out of the ten, eight participants were observed during a portion of their work. The information collected was analyzed using a constant comparative method. Participants described that the CPOE supported legible order communication between care providers and departments. CPOE use removed the requirement to transcribe orders to the medication administration record, as well as, the necessity to fax the order sheet to the pharmacy. However, in the ordering stage the nurse is also involved in providing information for order decision-making. Nurses discuss probable medication orders in cases of urgent situations, or nursing assessments of the patient. In this decision-making, the information requirements of nurses involve not only the medication information, but also information about other orders such as diagnostics, laboratory, and patient care orders. Future CPOE design and CPOE implementations should consider including mobile devices, alerts, and workflow modeling with the nursing information needs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207