The impact of computerised physician order entry with integrated clinical decision support on pharmacist-physician communication in the hospital setting

An analysis of over 34,000 free-text messages assigned by pharmacists to prescription orders over a 12-month period showed a sub-optimal exchange of information with the physician. Focus groups and observational research were conducted to provide a more in-depth understanding of the factors involved. The use of CPOE did not reduce opportunities for personal interaction. The capability to communicate electronically facilitated a non-interruptive workflow, beneficial for staff time and for limiting distractions. It also improved clinical documentation, which helped coordinate care of patients between members of the pharmacy team. However, the research identified several barriers to the effectiveness of communication via the CPOE system, including: the increased frequency of messages sent; poor display characteristics of the message; poor access to information to inform decision-making; one-way communication; and no assigned responsibility to respond. These factors need to be considered in the design of systems and supported by interprofessional training to optimise communication between the professionals

Pharmacist-Physician Communications in a Highly Computerised Hospital:Sign-Off and Action of Electronic Review Messages

<div><p>Background</p><p>Some hospital Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems support interprofessional communication. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of pharmacist-physician messages sent via a CPOE system.</p><p>Method</p><p>Data from the year 2012 were captured from a large university teaching hospital CPOE database on: 1) review messages assigned by pharmacists; 2) details of the prescription on which the messages were assigned; and 3) details of any changes made to the prescription following a review message being assigned. Data were coded for temporal, message and prescription factors. Messages were analysed to investigate: 1) whether they were signed-off; and 2) the time taken. Messages that requested a measurable action were further analysed to investigate: 1) whether they were actioned as requested; and 2) the time taken. We conducted a multivariable analysis using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for the effects of multiple factors simultaneously, and to adjust for any potential correlation between outcomes for repeated review messages on the same prescription. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), with p<0.05 considered significant.</p><p>Results</p><p>Pharmacists assigned 36,245 review messages to prescriptions over the 12 months, 34,506 of which were coded for analysis after exclusions. Nearly half of messages (46.6%) were signed-off and 65.5% of these were signed-off in ≤ 48 hours. Of the 9,991 further analysed for action, 35.8% led to an action as requested by the pharmacist and just over half of these (57.0%) were actioned in ≤ 24 hours. Factors predictive of an action were the time since the prescription was generated (p<0.001), pharmacist grade (p<0.001), presence of a high-risk medicine (p<0.001), messages relating to reconciliation (p = 0.004), theme of communication (p<0.001), speciality, (p<0.001), category of medicine (p<0.001), and regularity of the prescription (p<0.001).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>In this study we observed a lower rate of sign-off and action than we might have expected, suggesting uni-directional communication via the CPOE system may not be optimal. An established pharmacist-physician collaborative working relationship is likely to influence the prioritisation and response to messages, since a more desirable outcome was observed in settings and with grades of pharmacists where this was more likely. Designing systems that can facilitate collaborative communication may be more effective in practice.</p></div

An evaluation of UK foundation trainee doctors’ learning behaviours in a technology-enhanced learning environment

BACKGROUND: Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) can be used to educate Foundation Programme trainee (F1 and F2) doctors. Despite the advantages of TEL, learning behaviours may be exhibited that are not desired by system developers or educators. The aim of this evaluation was to investigate how learner behaviours (e.g. time spent on task) were affected by temporal (e.g. time of year), module (e.g. word count), and individual (e.g. knowledge) factors for 16 mandatory TEL modules related to prescribing and therapeutics. METHODS: Data were extracted from the SCRIPT e-Learning platform for first year Foundation trainee (F1) doctors in the Health Education England’s West Midland region from 1(st) August 2013 to 5(th) August 2014. Generalised Estimating Equation models were used to examine the relationship between time taken to complete modules, date modules were completed, pre- and post-test scores, and module factors. RESULTS: Over the time period examined, 688 F1 doctors interacted with the 16 compulsory modules 10,255 times. The geometric mean time taken to complete a module was 28.9 min (95 % Confidence Interval: 28.4–29.5) and 1,075 (10.5 %) modules were completed in less than 10 min. In February and June (prior to F1 progression reviews) peaks occurred in the number of modules completed and troughs in the time taken. Most modules were completed, and the greatest amount of time was spent on the learning on a Sunday. More time was taken by those doctors with greater pre-test scores and those with larger improvements in test scores. CONCLUSIONS: Foundation trainees are exhibiting unintended learning behaviours in this TEL environment, which may be attributed to several factors. These findings can help guide future developments of this TEL programme and the integration of other TEL programmes into curricula by raising awareness of potential behavioural issues that may arise. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0651-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Perceptions and impact of mandatory eLearning for foundation trainee doctors:a qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND: Junior doctors in the UK must complete various educational components during their two year Foundation training programme. It is important that mandatory learning is informative and engaging. The aim of this study was to evaluate trainee doctors’ perceptions of a Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) programme developed to improve prescribing competency. METHOD: Focus groups and interviews were conducted at three hospital sites in the West Midlands. Codes, sub-themes and themes were determined using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 38 Foundation trainee doctors. Results revealed major themes relating to prescribing education, the user experience and user engagement. Key findings included the positive impact of preparedness following undergraduate education on the user experience of the TEL programme at the postgraduate level; the impact of content, structure, and individual learning needs and styles on the user experience; and the impact of motivation and time on engagement. Most trainees engaged with the programme owing to its mandatory nature; however, some trainees also used the programme voluntarily, for example, to acquire knowledge prior to starting a new placement. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to ensure that learners are willing to engage with mandatory TEL, and that they have the time and motivation to do so. It is also important to ensure that learners have a positive user experience and that in designing TEL individual differences in learning styles and needs are taken into account. These findings have implications for educators and system developers in the construction and design of mandatory eLearning programmes

Electronic prescribing systems in hospitals to improve medication safety: a multimethods research programme.

Electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) systems allow health-care professionals to enter prescriptions and manage medicines using a computer. We set out to find out how these ePrescribing systems are chosen, set up and used in English hospitals. Given that these systems are designed to improve medication safety, we looked at whether or not these systems affected the number of prescribing errors made (mistakes such as ordering the wrong dose of medication). We also tried to see whether or not the systems were good value for money (or more cost-effective). Finally, we made recommendations to help hospitals choose, set up and use ePrescribing systems. We found that setting up ePrescribing systems was very difficult because there is a need to take into consideration how different pharmacists, nurses and doctors work, and the different work that needs to be carried out for different diseases and medical conditions. We recorded a link between the implementation of ePrescribing systems and a reduction in some high-risk prescribing errors in two out of three study sites. Given that the error reductions corresponded to the warnings triggered by the system, we concluded that the system is likely to have caused the error reduction. Prescribing errors may lead to adverse events that lead to death, impaired quality of life and longer hospital stays. The cost of an ePrescribing system increased in proportion to reduced errors, reaching £4.31 per patient per year for the site that experienced the greatest reduction in prescribing errors (i.e. site S). This estimate is based on assumptions in the model and how much a health service is willing to pay for a unit of health benefit. To help professionals choose, set up and use ePrescribing systems in the future, we produced an online ePrescribing Toolkit (www.eprescribingtoolkit.com/; accessed 21 December 2019) that, with support from NHS England, is becoming widely used internationally