{"title":"研究论文:医生对两种订单输入系统的满意度","authors":"H. Murff, J. Kannry","doi":"10.1136/jamia.2001.0080499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: In the wake of the Institute of Medicine report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (LT Kohn, JM Corrigan, MS Donaldson, eds; Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), numerous advisory panels are advocating widespread implementation of physician order entry as a means to reduce errors and improve patient safety. Successful implementation of an order entry system requires that attention be given to the user interface. The authors assessed physician satisfaction with the user interface of two different order entry systems—a commercially available product, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).\n\nDesign and Measurement: A standardized instrument for measuring user satisfaction with physician order entry systems was mailed to internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics house staff physicians. The subjects answered questions on each system using a 0 to 9 scale.\n\nResults: The survey response rates were 63 and 64 percent for the two order entry systems. Overall, house staff were dissatisfied with the commercial system, giving it an overall mean score of 3.67 (95 percent confidence interval [95%CI], 3.37–3.97). In contrast, the CPRS had a mean score of 7.21 (95% CI, 7.00–7.43), indicating that house staff were satisfied with the system. Overall satisfaction was most strongly correlated with the ability to perform tasks in a “straightforward” manner.\n\nConclusions: User satisfaction differed significantly between the two order entry systems, suggesting that all order entry systems are not equally usable. Given the national usage of the two order entry systems studied, further studies are needed to assess physician satisfaction with use of these same systems at other institutions.","PeriodicalId":344533,"journal":{"name":"J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"70","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research Paper: Physician Satisfaction with Two Order Entry Systems\",\"authors\":\"H. Murff, J. Kannry\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jamia.2001.0080499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: In the wake of the Institute of Medicine report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (LT Kohn, JM Corrigan, MS Donaldson, eds; Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), numerous advisory panels are advocating widespread implementation of physician order entry as a means to reduce errors and improve patient safety. Successful implementation of an order entry system requires that attention be given to the user interface. The authors assessed physician satisfaction with the user interface of two different order entry systems—a commercially available product, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).\\n\\nDesign and Measurement: A standardized instrument for measuring user satisfaction with physician order entry systems was mailed to internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics house staff physicians. The subjects answered questions on each system using a 0 to 9 scale.\\n\\nResults: The survey response rates were 63 and 64 percent for the two order entry systems. Overall, house staff were dissatisfied with the commercial system, giving it an overall mean score of 3.67 (95 percent confidence interval [95%CI], 3.37–3.97). In contrast, the CPRS had a mean score of 7.21 (95% CI, 7.00–7.43), indicating that house staff were satisfied with the system. Overall satisfaction was most strongly correlated with the ability to perform tasks in a “straightforward” manner.\\n\\nConclusions: User satisfaction differed significantly between the two order entry systems, suggesting that all order entry systems are not equally usable. Given the national usage of the two order entry systems studied, further studies are needed to assess physician satisfaction with use of these same systems at other institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"70\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2001.0080499\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2001.0080499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70
摘要
目标:在医学研究所报告之后,犯错是人:建立一个更安全的卫生系统(LT Kohn, JM Corrigan, MS Donaldson编辑;华盛顿特区:国家科学院出版社,1999年),许多咨询小组提倡广泛实施医嘱输入,作为减少错误和提高患者安全的手段。订单输入系统的成功实现需要注意用户界面。作者评估了医生对两种不同的订单输入系统用户界面的满意度——一种是市售产品,另一种是退伍军人事务部计算机病历系统(CPRS)。设计和测量:将一种用于测量用户对医嘱输入系统满意度的标准化仪器邮寄给内科和儿科医院的工作人员医生。受试者用0到9的等级回答每个系统上的问题。结果:两种订单输入系统的调查回复率分别为63%和64%。总体而言,院务人员对商业系统不满意,总体平均得分为3.67分(95%置信区间[95%CI], 3.37-3.97)。相比之下,CPRS的平均得分为7.21 (95% CI, 7.00-7.43),表明院务工作人员对该系统感到满意。总体满意度与以“直截了当”的方式完成任务的能力密切相关。结论:用户满意度在两种订单输入系统之间存在显著差异,表明所有订单输入系统的可用性并不相同。鉴于所研究的两种订单输入系统的全国使用情况,需要进一步的研究来评估医生对其他机构使用这些相同系统的满意度。
Research Paper: Physician Satisfaction with Two Order Entry Systems
Objectives: In the wake of the Institute of Medicine report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (LT Kohn, JM Corrigan, MS Donaldson, eds; Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), numerous advisory panels are advocating widespread implementation of physician order entry as a means to reduce errors and improve patient safety. Successful implementation of an order entry system requires that attention be given to the user interface. The authors assessed physician satisfaction with the user interface of two different order entry systems—a commercially available product, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).
Design and Measurement: A standardized instrument for measuring user satisfaction with physician order entry systems was mailed to internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics house staff physicians. The subjects answered questions on each system using a 0 to 9 scale.
Results: The survey response rates were 63 and 64 percent for the two order entry systems. Overall, house staff were dissatisfied with the commercial system, giving it an overall mean score of 3.67 (95 percent confidence interval [95%CI], 3.37–3.97). In contrast, the CPRS had a mean score of 7.21 (95% CI, 7.00–7.43), indicating that house staff were satisfied with the system. Overall satisfaction was most strongly correlated with the ability to perform tasks in a “straightforward” manner.
Conclusions: User satisfaction differed significantly between the two order entry systems, suggesting that all order entry systems are not equally usable. Given the national usage of the two order entry systems studied, further studies are needed to assess physician satisfaction with use of these same systems at other institutions.