Appraising the adequacy of environment for confined animals.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to D W Bates.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions due to adverse drug events (ADEs) are expensive, and many may be preventable, yet few institutions have ongoing surveillance for these events. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a computer-based ADE monitor to identify admissions due to ADEs and to measure the associated costs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in one tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to nine medical and surgical units in a tertiary care hospital over an 8-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Admissions to the hospital due to an adverse drug event. METHODS: A computer-based monitoring program generated alerts suggesting that an ADE might be present. A trained reviewer then evaluated the record. RESULTS: Among the 3238 admissions, 76 (2.3%, 1.4% after adjusting for sampling) were found to be caused by an ADE. Of these ADEs, 78% were severe and 28% were preventable. Estimated costs were $16,177 per ADE, and $10,375 per preventable ADE; annualized costs to the hospital were $6.3 million per year for all ADEs, and $1.2 million for preventable ADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Many admissions were caused by ADEs, although our point estimate undoubtedly represents a lower bound. These events were mostly severe, often preventable, and expensive. The computer-based monitoring system represents a practical approach for identifying ADEs that occur in outpatients and cause admission to the hospital.
The physician must have a high index of suspicion to detect SCC early in patients with malignancy. Back pain is the first symptom in almost all patients, and the diagnosis should be considered for all older patients with back pain. Asking about back pain should be a routine part of the review of systems, especially for patients with known malignancies. Clinically, it is impossible to tell whether or not a patient who has back pain and cancer has epidural SCC. Patients may be stratified as to the likelihood of SCC using the history and physical examination, but the diagnosis relies on radiographic visualization of the spinal cord. It may be acceptable to closely follow patients with normal neurologic examinations and normal plain films, but even this is controversial and includes only a minority of patients. Myelography remains the test of choice. MRI will play an increasingly important role in the future, but has not yet been systematically evaluated. The best therapeutic approach is not clear, but standard treatment is only about 50% effective in all cases. At present, radiation therapy is the treatment of choice for many patients, in particular those who are ambulatory at diagnosis. Anterior resection with vertebral body reconstruction is an exciting approach and may substantially improve the prognosis for patients who are paraparetic or paraplegic. It is important to attempt to choose for each patient the diagnostic and therapeutic options offering the best chance for comfort and preservation of function. The decision of how or even whether to treat is multifactorial and is more complicated than the determination of simply whether or not compression is present.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Information systems (IS) are increasingly important for measuring and improving quality. In this paper, we describe our integrated delivery system's plan for and experiences with measuring and improving quality using IS. Our belief is that for quality measurement to be practical, it must be integrated with the routine provision of care and whenever possible should be done using IS. Thus, at one hospital, we now perform almost all quality measurement using IS. We are also building a clinical data warehouse, which will serve as a repository for quality information across the network. However, IS are not only useful for measuring care, but also represent powerful tools for improving care using decision support. Specific areas in which we have already seen significant benefit include reducing the unnecessary use of laboratory testing, reporting important abnormalities to key providers rapidly, prevention and detection of adverse drug events, initiatives to change prescribing patterns to reduce drug costs and making critical pathways available to providers. Our next major effort will be introduce computerized guidelines on a more widespread basis, which will be challenging. However, the advent of managed care in the US has produced strong incentives to provide high quality care at low cost and our perspective is that only with better IS than exist today will this be possible without compromising quality. Such systems make feasible implementation of quality measurement, care improvement and cost reduction initiatives on a scale which could not previously be considered.
While agreeing that proper confidentiality measures are necessary when handling patient records, author discusses finding a balance between privacy and the benefits of using patient data to improve quality and to control costs.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential ability of computerized information systems (ISs) to identify and prevent adverse events in medical patients. DESIGN: Clinical descriptions of all 133 adverse events identified through chart review for a cohort of 3,138 medical patients were evaluated by two reviewers. MEASUREMENTS: For each adverse event, three hierarchical levels of IS sophistication were considered: Level 1--demographics, results for all diagnostic tests, and current medications would be available on-line; Level 2--all orders would be entered on-line by physicians; and Level 3--additional clinical data, such as automated problem lists, would be available on-line. Potential for event identification and potential for event prevention were scored by each reviewer according to two distinct sets of event monitors. RESULTS: Of all the adverse events, 53% were judged identifiable using Level 1 information, 58% were judged identifiable using Level 2 information, and 89% were judged identifiable using Level 3 information. The highest-yield event monitors for identifying adverse events were "panic" laboratory results, unexpected transfer to an intensive care unit, and hospital-incurred trauma. With information from Levels 1, 2, and 3, 5%, 13%, and 23% of the adverse events, respectively, were judged preventable. For preventing these adverse events, guided-dose algorithms, drug-laboratory checks, and drug-patient characteristic checks held the most potential.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate user satisfaction, correlates of satisfaction, and self-reported usage patterns regarding physician order entry (POE) in one hospital. DESIGN: Surveys were sent to physician and nurse POE users from medical and surgical services. RESULTS: The users were generally satisfied with POE (mean = 5.07 on a 1 to 7 scale). The physicians were more satisfied than the nurses, and the medical staff were more satisfied than the surgical staff; satisfaction levels were acceptable (more than 3.50) even in the less satisfied groups. Satisfaction was highly correlated with perceptions about POE's effects on productivity, ease of use, and speed. POE features directed at improving the quality of care were less strongly correlated with satisfaction. The physicians valued POE's off-floor accessibility most, and the nurses valued legibility and accuracy of POE orders most. Some features, such as off-floor ordering, were perceived to be highly useful and reported to be frequently used by the physicians; while other features, such as "quick mode'' ordering and personal order sets, received little self-reported use. CONCLUSIONS: Survey of POE users showed that satisfaction with POE was good. Satisfaction was more correlated with perceptions about POE's effect on productivity than with POE's effect on quality of care. Physicians and nurses constitute two very different types of users, underscoring the importance of involving both physicians and nonphysicians in POE development. The results suggest that development efforts should focus on improving system speed, adding on-line help, and emphasizing quality benefits of POE.
OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate utilization of diagnostic testing has been well documented. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of presenting real time, evidence-based critiques about the appropriateness of abdominal radiograph (KUB) orders on physician decision making. DESIGN: Prospective trial where evidence-based critiques were presented to ordering clinicians in two kinds of situations: (1) a KUB was likely to have a low probability of providing useful information, or (2) an alternative view(s) was more appropriate given the clinical circumstance. There were two phases of the trial: Phase 1 was a 9-week period where evidence-based critiques were presented at the time of ordering a KUB, followed by Phase 2, a 19-week period in which orderers were randomized to receive critiques either amended to include both institutional data regarding the utility of the critiques and stronger messages about the lack of utility of the study, or the same critiques as presented in Phase 1, depending upon indication. Based upon the radiologist's report of their interpretation of the exams, the results of the examinations were scored as positive, equivocal, or negative using structured criteria. RESULTS: 299 KUBs in Phase 1 and 385 KUBs in Phase 2 received at least one critique. Cancellation rates of low yield films were low, and were similar in Phase 1 and 2, 8/258 (3%) vs. 10/283 (4%). Compliance with the recommendation for alternative view(s) was higher: 19/104 (38%) in Phase 1 vs. 96/176 (55%) in Phase 2 (p = 0.006). The results differentiated low-yield from non-low-yield films: 5% of low-yield films vs. 20% of non-low-yield films were positive in Phase 2 (p < 0.0001). Surgical physicians were less likely to cancel (p = 0.07) or to change to the suggested view(s) (p < 0.0001) than medical physicians or nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention identified clinical situations in which KUBs appeared to have a low clinical yield. In response to evidence-based critiques, providers were reluctant to cancel their order, but were more willing to change to different views. To reduce the number of inappropriate radiographic films, stronger incentives or interventions may be required.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to determine how frequently critical laboratory results (CLRs) occur and how rapidly they are acted upon. A CLR was defined as a result that met either the critical reporting criteria used by the laboratory at Brigham and Women's Hospital or other, more complex criteria. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study in a large academic tertiary-care hospital. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of chemistry and hematology results obtained in a 13-day period that met the hospital laboratory's critical reporting criteria were calculated. The charts of a stratified random sample of patients with CLRs due to sodium, potassium, and glucose were reviewed to determine the time interval until an appropriate treatment was ordered and the time interval until the critical condition was resolved. RESULTS: In 13 days, 1938 of 201,037 laboratory results (0.96%, or 0.44 per patient-day) met the hospital's critical reporting criteria. In the chart review, 222 CLRs were included in the stratified random sample, and 99 of these met the inclusion criteria. Among these 99 CLRs, the median time interval until an appropriate treatment was ordered was 2.5 hours. This interval was 1.8 hours when the CLR met the laboratory's criteria and a phone call was made, and 2.8 hours when the CLR met more complex criteria not requiring a phone call (p = 0.07). For 27 (27%) of the CLRs, an appropriate treatment was ordered only after five or more hours. The median time until the condition resolved was 14.3 hours: 12.0 hours for CLRs that met the hospital's criteria and 20.9 hours for the CLRs that met the more complex criteria (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Although CLRs meeting the hospital's criteria were reported promptly by the laboratory, treatment delays were still common. Results that did not meet the hospital's critical criteria but still represented serious clinical situations were more often associated with treatment delays. Difficulty communicating critical results directly to the responsible caregiver is the likely cause of some delays in treatment. New communications methods, including computer-based technologies, should be explored and tested for their potential to reduce treatment delays and improve clinical care.
BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are both common and costly. Most hospitals identify ADEs using spontaneous reporting, but this approach lacks sensitivity; chart review identifies more events but is expensive. Computer-based approaches to ADE identification appear promising, but they have not been directly compared with chart review and they are not widely used. OBJECTIVES: To develop a computer-based ADE monitor, and to compare the rate and type of ADEs found with the monitor with those discovered by chart review and by stimulated voluntary report. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in one tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to nine medical and surgical units in a tertiary-care hospital over an eight-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adverse drug events identified by the computer-based monitor, by chart review, and by stimulated voluntary report. METHODS: A computer-based monitoring program identified alerts, which were situations suggesting that an ADE might be present (e.g., an order for an antidote such as naloxone). A trained reviewer then examined patients' hospital records to determine whether an ADE had occurred. The results of the computer-based monitoring strategy were compared with two other ADE detection strategies: intensive chart review and stimulated voluntary report by nurses and pharmacists. The monitor and the chart review strategies were independent, and the reviewers were blinded. RESULTS: The computer monitoring strategy identified 2,620 alerts, of which 275 were determined to be ADEs. The chart review found 398 ADEs, whereas voluntary report detected 23. Of the 617 ADEs detected by at least one method, 76 ADEs were detected by both computer monitor and chart review. The computer monitor identified 45 percent; chart review, 65 percent; and voluntary report, 4 percent. The ADEs identified by computer monitor were more likely to be classified as "severe" than were those identified by chart review (51 versus 42 percent, p = .04). The positive predictive value of computer-generated alerts was 16 percent during the first eight weeks of the study; rule modifications increased this to 23 percent in the final eight weeks. The computer strategy required 11 person-hours per week to execute, whereas chart review required 55 person-hours per week and voluntary report strategy required 5. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-based monitor identified fewer ADEs than did chart review but many more ADEs than did stimulated voluntary report. The overlap among the ADEs identified using different methods was small, suggesting that the incidence of ADEs may be higher than previously reported and that different detection methods capture different events. The computer-based monitoring system represents an efficient approach for measuring ADE frequency and gauging the effectiveness of ADE prevention programs.
BACKGROUND: Vancomycin-resistant enterococci represent an increasingly important cause of nosocomial infections. Minimizing vancomycin use represents a key strategy in preventing the spread of these infections. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a structured ordering intervention using computerized physician order entry that requires use of a guideline could reduce intravenous vancomycin use. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial assessing frequency and duration of vancomycin therapy by physicians. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Three hundred ninety-six physicians and 1,798 patients in a tertiary-care teaching hospital. INTERVENTION: Computer screen displaying, at the time of physician order entry, an adaptation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for appropriate vancomycin use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency of initiation and renewal of vancomycin therapy as well the duration of therapy prescribed on a per prescriber basis. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, intervention physicians wrote 32 percent fewer orders (11.3 versus 16.7 orders per physician; P = 0.04) and had 28 percent fewer patients for whom they either initiated or renewed an order for vancomycin (7.4 versus 10.3 orders per physician; P = 0.02). In addition, the duration of vancomycin therapy attributable to physicians in the intervention group was 36 percent lower than the duration of therapy prescribed by control physicians (26.5 versus 41.2 days; P = 0.05). Analysis of pharmacy data confirmed a decrease in the overall hospital use of intravenous vancomycin during the study period. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a computerized guideline using physician order entry decreased vancomycin use. Computerized guidelines represent a promising tool for changing prescribing practices.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an automatic alerting system on the time until treatment is ordered for patients with critical laboratory results. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: A computer system to detect critical conditions and automatically notify the responsible physician via the hospital's paging system. PATIENTS: Medical and surgical inpatients at a large academic medical center. One two-month study period for each service. MAIN OUTCOMES: Interval from when a critical result was available for review until an appropriate treatment was ordered. Secondary outcomes were the time until the critical condition resolved and the frequency of adverse events. METHODS: The alerting system looked for 12 conditions involving laboratory results and medications. For intervention patients, the covering physician was automatically notified about the presence of the results. For control patients, no automatic notification was made. Chart review was performed to determine the outcomes. RESULTS: After exclusions, 192 alerting situations (94 interventions, 98 controls) were analyzed. The intervention group had a 38 percent shorter median time interval (1.0 hours vs. 1.6 hours, P = 0.003; mean, 4.1 vs. 4.6 hours, P = 0.003) until an appropriate treatment was ordered. The time until the alerting condition resolved was less in the intervention group (median, 8.4 hours vs. 8.9 hours, P = 0.11; mean, 14.4 hours vs. 20.2 hours, P = 0.11), although these results did not achieve statistical significance. The impact of the intervention was more pronounced for alerts that did not meet the laboratory's critical reporting criteria. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of adverse events. CONCLUSION: An automatic alerting system reduced the time until an appropriate treatment was ordered for patients who had critical laboratory results. Information technologies that facilitate the transmission of important patient data can potentially improve the quality of care.
BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common, and while most such errors have little potential for harm they cause substantial extra work in hospitals. A small proportion do have the potential to cause injury, and some cause preventable adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of computerized physician order entry (POE) with decision support in reducing the number of medication errors. DESIGN: Prospective time series analysis, with four periods. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to three medical units were studied for seven to ten-week periods in four different years. The baseline period was before implementation of POE, and the remaining three were after. Sophistication of POE increased with each successive period. INTERVENTION: Physician order entry with decision support features such as drug allergy and drug-drug interaction warnings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Medication errors, excluding missed dose errors. RESULTS: During the study, the non-missed-dose medication error rate fell 81 percent, from 142 per 1,000 patient-days in the baseline period to 26.6 per 1,000 patient-days in the final period (P < 0.0001). Non-intercepted serious medication errors (those with the potential to cause injury) fell 86 percent from baseline to period 3, the final period (P = 0.0003). Large differences were seen for all main types of medication errors: dose errors, frequency errors, route errors, substitution errors, and allergies. For example, in the baseline period there were ten allergy errors, but only two in the following three periods combined (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Computerized POE substantially decreased the rate of non-missed-dose medication errors. A major reduction in errors was achieved with the initial version of the system, and further reductions were found with addition of decision support features.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a computer program to identify adverse drug events (ADEs) in the ambulatory setting and to evaluate the relative contribution of four computer search methods for identifying ADEs, including diagnosis codes, allergy rules, computer event monitoring rules, and text searching. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of one year of data from an electronic medical record, including records for 23,064 patients with a primary care physician, of whom 15,665 actually came for care. MEASUREMENT: Presence of an ADE; sensitivity and specificity of computer searches for ADE. RESULTS: The computer program identified 25,056 incidents, which were associated with an estimated 864 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 750-978) ADES. Thus, the ADE rate was 5.5 (CI, 5.2-5.9) per 100 patients coming for care. Furthermore, in 79 (CI, 68-89) ADEs, the patient required hospitalization, resulting in an estimated rate of 3.4 (CI, 2.7-4.3) admissions per 1,000 patients. The sensitivity of the search methods for identifying ADEs was estimated to be 58 (CI, 18-98) percent, and the estimated specificity was 88 (CI, 87-88) percent. The positive predictive value was 7.5 (CI, 6.5-8.5) percent, and the negative predictive value was 99.2 (CI, 95.5-99.98) percent. Compared with age and gender-matched controls with no positive screen, patients with ADEs had twice as many outpatient visits and were taking nearly three times as many drugs. Antihypertensives, ACE-inhibitors, antibiotics, and diuretics were associated with 56 (CI, 47-65) percent of ADES. Among ADEs, 23 (CI, 16-32) percent were life-threatening or serious, and 38 (CI, 29-47) percent were judged preventable. CONCLUSION: Computerized search programs can detect ADEs, and free-text searches were especially useful. Adverse drug events were frequent, and admissions were not rare, although most hospitals today do not identify them. Thus, such detection programs demonstrate "value-added" for the electronic record and may be useful for directing and assessing the impact of quality improvement efforts.
BACKGROUND: Increasing data suggest that error in medicine is frequent and results in substantial harm. The recent Institute of Medicine report (LT Kohn, JM Corrigan, MS Donaldson, eds: To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999) described the magnitude of the problem, and the public interest in this issue, which was already large, has grown. GOAL: The goal of this white paper is to describe how the frequency and consequences of errors in medical care can be reduced (although in some instances they are potentiated) by the use of information technology in the provision of care, and to make general and specific recommendations regarding error reduction through the use of information technology. RESULTS: General recommendations are to implement clinical decision support judiciously; to consider consequent actions when designing systems; to test existing systems to ensure they actually catch errors that injure patients; to promote adoption of standards for data and systems; to develop systems that communicate with each other; to use systems in new ways; to measure and prevent adverse consequences; to make existing quality structures meaningful; and to improve regulation and remove disincentives for vendors to provide clinical decision support. Specific recommendations are to implement provider order entry systems, especially computerized prescribing; to implement bar-coding for medications, blood, devices, and patients; and to utilize modern electronic systems to communicate key pieces of asynchronous data such as markedly abnormal laboratory values. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate increases in the use of information technology in health care- especially the introduction of clinical decision support and better linkages in and among systems, resulting in process simplification-could result in substantial improvement in patient safety.