Computerized Provider Order Entry Adoption: Implications for Clinical Workflow
- 714 Downloads
To identify and describe unintended adverse consequences related to clinical workflow when implementing or using computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems.
We analyzed qualitative data from field observations and formal interviews gathered over a three-year period at five hospitals in three organizations. Five multidisciplinary researchers worked together to identify themes related to the impacts of CPOE systems on clinical workflow.
CPOE systems can affect clinical work by 1) introducing or exposing human/computer interaction problems, 2) altering the pace, sequencing, and dynamics of clinical activities, 3) providing only partial support for the work activities of all types of clinical personnel, 4) reducing clinical situation awareness, and 5) poorly reflecting organizational policy and procedure.
As CPOE systems evolve, those involved must take care to mitigate the many unintended adverse effects these systems have on clinical workflow. Workflow issues resulting from CPOE can be mitigated by iteratively altering both clinical workflow and the CPOE system until a satisfactory fit is achieved.
KEY WORDSattitude to computers hospital information systems user–computer interface physician order entry
We would like to thank all the individuals who allowed us to observe or interview them, and the experts who participated in the Menucha Conference. Special thanks go to the site principal investigators J. Marc Overhage, M.D., Ph.D., Eric G. Poon, M.D., M.P.H., and Carol Hudson, R.N. This work was funded by research grant LM06942 and training grant ASMM10031 from the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Conflict of Interest
The authors state no conflicts of interest regarding the research or publication of this manuscript.
- 2.Committee on Quality Health Care in America. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 1999.Google Scholar
- 3.Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2001.Google Scholar
- 4.The Leapfrog Group. Factsheet: Computer physician order entry. 2004 [accessed August 29, 2008]; Available from: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-Computer_Physician_Order_Entry_Fact_Sheet.pdf
- 6.Sprague L. Electronic health records: How close? How far to go. NHPF Issue Brief. 2004;800:1–17.Google Scholar
- 9.Koppel R, Metlay J, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio A, SE K. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293:10:1197–1203.Google Scholar
- 14.Aarts J, Berg M. A tale of two hospitals: a sociotechnical appraisal of the introduction of computerized physician order entry in two Dutch hospitals. 2004;11(Pt 2):. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107(Pt 2):999–1002.Google Scholar
- 17.Poon E, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour M, Bates D, Kaushal R. Overcoming the barriers to the implementing computerized physician order entry systems in US hospitals: perspectives from senior management. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:975.Google Scholar
- 22.Lincoln Y, Guba E. Natualistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1985.Google Scholar
- 25.Crabtree B, Miller WL. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1999.Google Scholar
- 27.Dourish P, Bellotti V. Awareness and coordination in shared work spaces. ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CWSW ’92). 1992:107–14.Google Scholar
- 30.Overhage J, Perkins S, Tierney W, McDonald C. Controlled trial of direct physician order entry: effects on physicians’ time utilization in ambulatory primary care internal medicine practices 2001;8(4):361–71.Google Scholar