Implementation and Benefits of Computerized Physician Order Entry and Evidence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems

  • Stacy E. F. Melanson
  • Aileen P. Morrison
  • David W. Bates
  • Milenko J. Tanasijevic


The practice of medicine tends to lag behind important advances in many ways, including the use of novel diagnostic and treatment modalities. In the field of pathology and laboratory medicine, test complexity and test menus continue to expand, necessitating that clinicians obtain domain expertise to make the appropriate testing decisions for patients. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are one modality through which evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines can be deployed to assist clinicians at the time orders are being placed with the goals of improving the quality of care, decreasing errors, and reducing costs. After a brief introduction to CDSSs, this chapter uses specific examples to illustrate how evidence-based pathology can be used to implement CDSSs and monitor their success through cost-benefit evaluation.


Evidence-based clinical decision support systems Computerized ­physician order entry Evidence-based medicine Clinical decision ­support systems 


  1. 1.
    Bates DW et al. Does the computerized display of charges affect inpatient ancillary test utilization? Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(21):2501–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuperman GJ, Gibson RF. Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(1):31–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates DW et al. What proportion of common diagnostic tests appear redundant? Am J Med. 1998;104(4):361–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melanson SE et al. Utilization of arterial blood gas measurements in a large tertiary care hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127(4):604–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Axt-Adam P, van der Wouden JC, van der Does E. Influencing behavior of physicians ordering laboratory tests: a literature study. Med Care. 1993;31(9):784–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bates DW et al. Strategies for physician education in therapeutic drug monitoring. Clin Chem. 1998;44(2):401–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harpole LH et al. Automated evidence-based critiquing of orders for abdominal radiographs: impact on utilization and appropriateness. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(6):511–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Solomon DH et al. Techniques to improve physicians’ use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. JAMA. 1998;280(23):2020–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyon AW, Greenway DC, Hindmarsh JT. A strategy to promote rational clinical chemistry test utilization. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103(6):718–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bates DW et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106(2):144–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shea S et al. Computer-generated informational messages directed to physicians: effect on length of hospital stay. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2(1):58–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tierney WM et al. Computer predictions of abnormal test results. Effects on outpatient testing. JAMA. 1988;259(8):1194–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tierney WM et al. Computerized display of past test results. Effect on outpatient testing. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(4):569–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoenenberger RA et al. Appropriateness of antiepileptic drug level monitoring. JAMA. 1995;274(20):1622–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tanasijevic MJ, Bates DW. Criteria for appropriate therapeutic monitoring of antiepileptic drugs. In: Therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, American Association for Clinical Chemistry, editor. Washington, D.C.; 1997. p. 13–19.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen P et al. A computer-based intervention for improving the appropriateness of antiepileptic drug level monitoring. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119(3):432–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michalko KJ, Blain L. An evaluation of a clinical pharmacokinetic service for serum digoxin levels. Ther Drug Monit. 1987;9(3):311–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canas F et al. Evaluating the appropriateness of digoxin level monitoring. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(4):363–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poteat HT, et al. Appropriateness of prostate-specific antigen testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;113(3):421–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolf AM, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(2):70–98.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith RA et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(2):99–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lieberman R. Evidence-based medical perspectives: the evolving role of PSA for early detection, monitoring of treatment response, and as a surrogate end point of efficacy for interventions in men with different clinical risk states for the prevention and progression of prostate cancer. Am J Ther. 2004;11(6):501–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tierney WM, Miller ME, McDonald CJ. The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(21):1499–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hampers LC et al. The effect of price information on test-ordering behavior and patient outcomes in a ­pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics. 1999;103(4 Pt 2):877–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    College of American Pathologists. Laboratory Accreditation Checklist. [cited 2010 May 28]; Available from:
  26. 26.
    The Joint Commission. 2010 National Patient Safety Goals. [cited 2010 May 28]; Available from:
  27. 27.
    Rind DM et al. Effect of computer-based alerts on the treatment and outcomes of hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(13):1511–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tate KE, Gardner RM, Weaver LK. A computerized laboratory alerting system. MD Comput. 1990;7(5):296–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park HI et al. Evaluating the short message service alerting system for critical value notification via PDA telephones. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2008;38(2):149–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piva E et al. Evaluation of effectiveness of a computerized notification system for reporting critical values. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(3):432–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Etchells E et al. Real-time clinical alerting: effect of an automated paging system on response time to critical laboratory values–a randomised controlled trial. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(2):99–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parl FF et al. Implementation of a closed-loop reporting system for critical values and clinical communication in compliance with goals of the joint commission. Clin Chem. 2010;56(3):417–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuperman GJ et al. How promptly are inpatients treated for critical laboratory results? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5(1):112–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuperman GJ et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(6):512–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaushal R et al. Return on investment for a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(3):261–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dexter PR et al. A computerized reminder system to increase the use of preventive care for hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(13):965–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Overhage JM et al. A randomized trial of “corollary orders” to prevent errors of omission. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(5):364–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Winkelman JW. Less utilization of the clinical laboratory produces disproportionately small true cost reductions. Hum Pathol. 1984;15(6):499–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chertow GM et al. Guided medication dosing for inpatients with renal insufficiency. JAMA. 2001;286(22):2839–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bates DW et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):523–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hayden RT et al. Computer-assisted bar-coding ­system significantly reduces clinical laboratory ­specimen identification errors in a pediatric oncology hospital. J Pediatr. 2008;152(2):219–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morrison AP et al. Reduction in specimen labeling errors after implementation of a positive patient identification system in phlebotomy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133(6):870–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bologna LJ, Lind C, Riggs RC. Reducing major ­identification errors within a deployed phlebotomy process. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev. 2002;16(1):22–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stacy E. F. Melanson
  • Aileen P. Morrison
  • David W. Bates
  • Milenko J. Tanasijevic
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations