A Randomized Trial of "Corollary Orders" to Prevent Errors of Omission

Regenstrief Institute for Health Care, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-2859, USA.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Impact Factor: 3.93). 09/1997; 4(5):364-75. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.1997.0040364
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Errors of omission are a common cause of systems failures. Physicians often fail to order tests or treatments needed to monitor/ameliorate the effects of other tests or treatments. The authors hypothesized that automated, guideline-based reminders to physicians, provided as they wrote orders, could reduce these omissions.
The study was performed on the inpatient general medicine ward of a public teaching hospital. Faculty and housestaff from the Indiana University School of Medicine, who used computer workstations to write orders, were randomized to intervention and control groups. As intervention physicians wrote orders for 1 of 87 selected tests or treatments, the computer suggested corollary orders needed to detect or ameliorate adverse reactions to the trigger orders. The physicians could accept or reject these suggestions.
During the 6-month trial, reminders about corollary orders were presented to 48 intervention physicians and withheld from 41 control physicians. Intervention physicians ordered the suggested corollary orders in 46.3% of instances when they received a reminder, compared with 21.9% compliance by control physicians (p < 0.0001). Physicians discriminated in their acceptance of suggested orders, readily accepting some while rejecting others. There were one third fewer interventions initiated by pharmacists with physicians in the intervention than control groups.
This study demonstrates that physician workstations, linked to a comprehensive electronic medical record, can be an efficient means for decreasing errors of omissions and improving adherence to practice guidelines.

Download full-text


Available from: J. Marc Overhage, Jul 30, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "Clinical guidelines can contribute to the definition of better, safer, and more efficient evidence-based clinical care, where errors, inconsistencies, incompleteness, or inefficiencies can be detected and can provide a basis for computer decision support. Studies have shown that guideline implementations can best affect clinician behavior if they can deliver patient-specific advice during the clinical encounter [3] [4]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The problem of designing and managing teams of workers that can collaborate working together towards common goals is a challenging one. Incomplete or ambiguous specification of responsibilities and accountabilities, lack of continuity in teams working in shifts, inefficient organization of teams due to lack of information about workers' competences and lack of clarity to determine if the work is delegated or assigned are examples of important problems related to collaborative work in healthcare teams. Here we address these problems by specifying goal-based patterns for abstracting the delegation and assignment of services. The proposed patterns should provide generic and reusable solutions and be flexible enough to be customizable at run time to the particular context of execution. Most importantly the patterns should support a mechanism for detecting abnormal events (exceptions) and for transferring responsibility and accountability for recovering from exceptions to the appropriate actor. To provide a generic solution to the problematic issues arising from collaborative work in teams of health workers we start from definitions of standard terms relevant for team work: competence, responsibility, and accountability. We make explicit the properties satisfied by service assignment and delegation in terms of competences, responsibilities, and accountability in normal scenarios and abnormal situations that require the enactment of recovery strategies. Based on these definitions we specify (1) a basic terminology, (2) design patterns for service assignment and delegation (with and without supervision), and (3) an exception manager for detecting and recovering from exceptions. We use a formal framework to specify design patterns and exceptions. We have proved using Owicki-Gries Theory that the proposed patterns satisfy the properties that characterize service assignment and delegation in terms of competence, responsibility and accountability in normal and abnormal (exceptional) scenarios. We show that although abstract, the proposed patterns can be instantiated in an executable COGENT prototype, and can be mapped into the Tallis tool that enacts PROforma language specifications of medical guidelines. The proposed patterns are generic and abstract enough to capture the normal and abnormal scenarios of assignment and delegation of tasks in collaborative work in health care teams.
    Artificial intelligence in medicine 09/2011; 53(3):139-60. DOI:10.1016/j.artmed.2011.08.005 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "[9] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) should be seamlessly integrated with existing clinical information systems to enable automatic provision of advice at the time and place where decisions are made. It has been suggested that a lack of agreed data standards frequently hampers this integration. We performed a literature review to investigate whether CDSSs used standardized (i.e. coded or numerical) data and which terminological systems have been used to code data. We also investigated whether a lack of standardized data was considered an impediment for CDSS implementation. Articles reporting an evaluation of a CDSS that provided a computerized advice based on patient-specific data items were identified based on a former literature review on CDSS and on CDSS studies identified in AMIA's 'Year in Review'. Authors of these articles were contacted to check and complete the extracted data. A questionnaire among the authors of included studies was used to determine the obstacles in CDSS implementation. We identified 77 articles published between 1995 and 2008. Twenty-two percent of the evaluated CDSSs used only numerical data. Fifty one percent of the CDSSs that used coded data applied an international terminology. The most frequently used international terminology were the ICD (International Classification of Diseases), used in 68% of the cases and LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) in 12% of the cases. More than half of the authors experienced barriers in CDSS implementation. In most cases these barriers were related to the lack of electronically available standardized data required to invoke or activate the CDSS. Many CDSSs applied different terminological systems to code data. This diversity hampers the possibility of sharing and reasoning with data within different systems. The results of the survey confirm the hypothesis that data standardization is a critical success factor for CDSS development.
    International Journal of Medical Informatics 02/2011; 80(2):81-93. DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.11.006 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "[9] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study is a systematic literature review to identify data collected in the preoperative assessment. The PubMed and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published from 1997 to 2007. From the included articles, data items that were described as part of the preoperative assessment were extracted. Identified data items were categorized into 13 categories originating from SNOMED CT. Forty-one relevant articles were found. Preoperative assessment was equally performed in outpatient clinics and in-hospitals. The assessment was performed between the day of surgery and 30 days before surgery by anesthesiologists (51%) and/or nurses (39%) and/or other professionals (34%). The included articles described 541 data items. The two largest categories of data were "past history of clinical finding" and "physical examination procedure," with 212 and 75 data items. Only 6 data items "age," "diabetes," "ECG," "cardiovascular diseases," "hypertension," and "cigarette smoking and other use of tobacco" were stated in 50% or more of the articles. This study revealed a high diversity of data being collected during the preoperative assessment. Because of the diversity of patients, one undisputed preoperative assessment data set is hard to define. However, to solve the problem of data exchangeability, professionals should at least use a common core data set.
    Computers, informatics, nursing: CIN 01/2011; 29(11):662-70. DOI:10.1097/NCN.0b013e31820660bb · 0.81 Impact Factor
Show more