电子健康记录订单中的自由文本:背景还是担忧?

Sadaf Kazi, Jessica L. Handley, Arianna P. Milicia, Raj M. Ratwani, Katharine T. Adams, Rebecca Jones, Seth Krevat
{"title":"电子健康记录订单中的自由文本:背景还是担忧?","authors":"Sadaf Kazi, Jessica L. Handley, Arianna P. Milicia, Raj M. Ratwani, Katharine T. Adams, Rebecca Jones, Seth Krevat","doi":"10.33940/001c.118587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When placing orders into the electronic health record (EHR), prescribers often use free-text information to complement the order. However, the use of these free-text fields can result in patient safety issues. The objective of our study was to develop a deeper understanding of the conditions under which free-text information, or special instructions, are used in the EHR and the patient safety issues associated with their use, through an analysis of patient safety event (PSE) reports. We identified 847 PSE reports submitted to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System (PA-PSRS) between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022; this dataset was reduced to 677 after controlling for oversampling from particular facilities. After limiting to reports that mentioned the terms “special instructions,” “order instructions,” “order comments,” or “special comments,” we analyzed a total of 329 reports. A physician and human factors expert independently reviewed the reports and assigned each a code from the following categories: general care process, medication class, information expressed in the special instruction, special instruction issue, department or staff for which special instruction was intended, and whether the error reached the patient. Almost three quarters of the special instruction reports were related to Medication (n=233 of 329, 70.8%), followed by Laboratory/Blood Bank (n=54, 16.4%), and Radiology (n=23, 7.0%). Medication classes most frequently associated with special instructions included infectious disease medications (n=51 of 230, 22.2%), antithrombotic/antithrombotic reversal agents (n=32, 13.9%), and nutritional/electrolytes/intravenous fluids (n=32, 13.9%). Nearly one quarter each of medication-related special instructions were about timing (n=58 of 233, 24.9%) and dosing (n=54, 23.2%); most about laboratory/blood bank were related to the site of the blood draw (n=33 of 54, 61.1%), and many involving radiology were related to radiology/echocardiography instructions (n=16 of 23, 69.6%). The most frequent issues associated with special instructions were containing information contradictory to the order or other information (n=62 of 329, 18.8%); being confusing, incorrect, or used incorrectly (n=58, 17.6%); and not seen (n=25, 7.6%), not viewable (n=11, 3.3%), or instructions absent (n=11, 3.3%). In more than half of the reports, special instructions were intended for nursing staff (n=184 of 329, 55.9%), followed by pharmacy (n=49, 14.9%), radiology (n=21, 6.4%), and laboratory/blood bank (n=20, 6.1%). The error reached the patient in roughly three quarters (n=243 of 329, 73.9%) of the reports reviewed. Special instructions are frequently used to provide additional context about medication orders and laboratory and radiology procedures and are often intended for nurses and pharmacists. However, these instructions can result in errors and may cause patient harm. Based on our analysis, we provide EHR design strategies and policies and protocols to address patient safety issues associated with free text to enable safer and more resilient care delivery.","PeriodicalId":509285,"journal":{"name":"PATIENT SAFETY","volume":"12 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Free Text as Part of Electronic Health Record Orders: Context or Concern?\",\"authors\":\"Sadaf Kazi, Jessica L. Handley, Arianna P. Milicia, Raj M. Ratwani, Katharine T. Adams, Rebecca Jones, Seth Krevat\",\"doi\":\"10.33940/001c.118587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When placing orders into the electronic health record (EHR), prescribers often use free-text information to complement the order. However, the use of these free-text fields can result in patient safety issues. The objective of our study was to develop a deeper understanding of the conditions under which free-text information, or special instructions, are used in the EHR and the patient safety issues associated with their use, through an analysis of patient safety event (PSE) reports. We identified 847 PSE reports submitted to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System (PA-PSRS) between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022; this dataset was reduced to 677 after controlling for oversampling from particular facilities. After limiting to reports that mentioned the terms “special instructions,” “order instructions,” “order comments,” or “special comments,” we analyzed a total of 329 reports. A physician and human factors expert independently reviewed the reports and assigned each a code from the following categories: general care process, medication class, information expressed in the special instruction, special instruction issue, department or staff for which special instruction was intended, and whether the error reached the patient. Almost three quarters of the special instruction reports were related to Medication (n=233 of 329, 70.8%), followed by Laboratory/Blood Bank (n=54, 16.4%), and Radiology (n=23, 7.0%). Medication classes most frequently associated with special instructions included infectious disease medications (n=51 of 230, 22.2%), antithrombotic/antithrombotic reversal agents (n=32, 13.9%), and nutritional/electrolytes/intravenous fluids (n=32, 13.9%). Nearly one quarter each of medication-related special instructions were about timing (n=58 of 233, 24.9%) and dosing (n=54, 23.2%); most about laboratory/blood bank were related to the site of the blood draw (n=33 of 54, 61.1%), and many involving radiology were related to radiology/echocardiography instructions (n=16 of 23, 69.6%). The most frequent issues associated with special instructions were containing information contradictory to the order or other information (n=62 of 329, 18.8%); being confusing, incorrect, or used incorrectly (n=58, 17.6%); and not seen (n=25, 7.6%), not viewable (n=11, 3.3%), or instructions absent (n=11, 3.3%). In more than half of the reports, special instructions were intended for nursing staff (n=184 of 329, 55.9%), followed by pharmacy (n=49, 14.9%), radiology (n=21, 6.4%), and laboratory/blood bank (n=20, 6.1%). The error reached the patient in roughly three quarters (n=243 of 329, 73.9%) of the reports reviewed. Special instructions are frequently used to provide additional context about medication orders and laboratory and radiology procedures and are often intended for nurses and pharmacists. However, these instructions can result in errors and may cause patient harm. Based on our analysis, we provide EHR design strategies and policies and protocols to address patient safety issues associated with free text to enable safer and more resilient care delivery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PATIENT SAFETY\",\"volume\":\"12 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PATIENT SAFETY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33940/001c.118587\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PATIENT SAFETY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33940/001c.118587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在向电子健康记录 (EHR) 下达医嘱时,处方医生通常会使用自由文本信息来补充医嘱。然而,使用这些自由文本字段可能会导致患者安全问题。我们研究的目的是通过分析患者安全事件 (PSE) 报告,深入了解电子病历中使用自由文本信息或特殊说明的条件,以及与使用自由文本信息或特殊说明相关的患者安全问题。我们确定了 2021 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间向宾夕法尼亚州患者安全报告系统(PA-PSRS)提交的 847 份 PSE 报告;在控制了特定机构的过度抽样后,该数据集减少到 677 份。在筛选出提及 "特殊说明"、"医嘱说明"、"医嘱注释 "或 "特殊注释 "的报告后,我们共分析了 329 份报告。一位医生和人为因素专家对报告进行了独立审核,并为每份报告分配了以下类别的代码:一般护理流程、药物类别、特殊说明中表达的信息、特殊说明问题、特殊说明针对的部门或员工,以及错误是否发生在患者身上。近四分之三的特殊说明报告与用药有关(329 份中有 233 份,占 70.8%),其次是实验室/血库(54 份,占 16.4%)和放射科(23 份,占 7.0%)。最常与特殊说明相关的药物类别包括传染病药物(230 例中有 51 例,占 22.2%)、抗血栓/抗血栓逆转剂(32 例,占 13.9%)和营养/电解质/静脉输液(32 例,占 13.9%)。与用药相关的特殊说明中,近四分之一涉及用药时间(233 例中有 58 例,占 24.9%)和用药剂量(54 例,占 23.2%);与化验室/血库相关的特殊说明大多与抽血部位有关(54 例中有 33 例,占 61.1%),涉及放射科的特殊说明大多与放射科/超声心动图检查指导有关(23 例中有 16 例,占 69.6%)。与特殊说明相关的最常见问题包括:包含与医嘱或其他信息相矛盾的信息(329 份中有 62 份,占 18.8%);混淆、不正确或使用不当(58 份,占 17.6%);未见(25 份,占 7.6%)、无法查看(11 份,占 3.3%)或说明缺失(11 份,占 3.3%)。在半数以上的报告中,特别说明是针对护理人员的(329 份中有 184 份,占 55.9%),其次是药房(49 份,占 14.9%)、放射科(21 份,占 6.4%)和实验室/血库(20 份,占 6.1%)。在所审查的报告中,约四分之三(329 份中的 243 份,73.9%)的错误发生在患者身上。特殊说明常用于提供有关用药医嘱、实验室和放射科程序的额外背景信息,通常针对护士和药剂师。然而,这些说明可能会导致错误,并可能对患者造成伤害。根据我们的分析,我们提供了电子病历设计策略、政策和协议,以解决与自由文本相关的患者安全问题,从而提供更安全、更有弹性的护理服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Free Text as Part of Electronic Health Record Orders: Context or Concern?
When placing orders into the electronic health record (EHR), prescribers often use free-text information to complement the order. However, the use of these free-text fields can result in patient safety issues. The objective of our study was to develop a deeper understanding of the conditions under which free-text information, or special instructions, are used in the EHR and the patient safety issues associated with their use, through an analysis of patient safety event (PSE) reports. We identified 847 PSE reports submitted to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System (PA-PSRS) between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022; this dataset was reduced to 677 after controlling for oversampling from particular facilities. After limiting to reports that mentioned the terms “special instructions,” “order instructions,” “order comments,” or “special comments,” we analyzed a total of 329 reports. A physician and human factors expert independently reviewed the reports and assigned each a code from the following categories: general care process, medication class, information expressed in the special instruction, special instruction issue, department or staff for which special instruction was intended, and whether the error reached the patient. Almost three quarters of the special instruction reports were related to Medication (n=233 of 329, 70.8%), followed by Laboratory/Blood Bank (n=54, 16.4%), and Radiology (n=23, 7.0%). Medication classes most frequently associated with special instructions included infectious disease medications (n=51 of 230, 22.2%), antithrombotic/antithrombotic reversal agents (n=32, 13.9%), and nutritional/electrolytes/intravenous fluids (n=32, 13.9%). Nearly one quarter each of medication-related special instructions were about timing (n=58 of 233, 24.9%) and dosing (n=54, 23.2%); most about laboratory/blood bank were related to the site of the blood draw (n=33 of 54, 61.1%), and many involving radiology were related to radiology/echocardiography instructions (n=16 of 23, 69.6%). The most frequent issues associated with special instructions were containing information contradictory to the order or other information (n=62 of 329, 18.8%); being confusing, incorrect, or used incorrectly (n=58, 17.6%); and not seen (n=25, 7.6%), not viewable (n=11, 3.3%), or instructions absent (n=11, 3.3%). In more than half of the reports, special instructions were intended for nursing staff (n=184 of 329, 55.9%), followed by pharmacy (n=49, 14.9%), radiology (n=21, 6.4%), and laboratory/blood bank (n=20, 6.1%). The error reached the patient in roughly three quarters (n=243 of 329, 73.9%) of the reports reviewed. Special instructions are frequently used to provide additional context about medication orders and laboratory and radiology procedures and are often intended for nurses and pharmacists. However, these instructions can result in errors and may cause patient harm. Based on our analysis, we provide EHR design strategies and policies and protocols to address patient safety issues associated with free text to enable safer and more resilient care delivery.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementing a Compliance Monitoring Process to Promote Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing and Hand Hygiene: An Initiative to Decrease Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections Unmasking the Contributing Factors to Oxygen Disruption Events in the Inpatient Environment and Emergency Department Free Text as Part of Electronic Health Record Orders: Context or Concern? Technology Failures Analysis of an Academic Medical Center’s Corrective Action Plan in Response to Fatal Medication Error Using the Institute for Safe Medication Practices’ Hierarchy of Effectiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1