Person:

Teich, Jonathan

Background: The computerized display of charges for ancillary tests in outpatients has been found to affect physician-ordering behavior, but this issue has not been studied in inpatients.

Objective: To assess whether the computerized display of charges for clinical laboratory or radiological tests affected physician-ordering behavior.

Patients and methods: Two prospective controlled trials, randomized by patient, were performed. Each trial included all medical and surgical inpatients at 1 large teaching hospital during 4 and 7 months: 3536 intervention and 3554 control inpatients in the group with clinical laboratory tests, and 8728 intervention and 8653 control inpatients in the group with radiological tests. The intervention consisted of the computerized display of charges for tests at the time of ordering.

Main outcome measures: The number of clinical laboratory and radiological tests ordered per admission and the charges for these tests.

Results: For the clinical laboratory tests, during a 4-month study period, patients in the intervention group had 4.5% fewer tests ordered, and the total charges for these tests were 4.2% lower, although neither difference was statistically significant. Compared with historical controls from the same 4-month period a year before, the charges for the tests per admission had decreased 13.3%, but the decrease was temporally correlated with a restriction of future ordering of tests, and not with the introduction of the display of charges. For the radiological tests, during a 7-month period, the intervention group had almost identical numbers of tests ordered and charges for these tests.

Conclusions: The computerized display of charges had no statistically significant effect on the number of clinical laboratory tests or radiological procedures ordered or performed, although small trends were present for clinical laboratory tests. More intensive interventions may be needed to affect physician test utilization.

Background: Computerized order entry systems have the potential to prevent errors, to improve quality of care, and to reduce costs by providing feedback and suggestions to the physician as each order is entered. This study assesses the impact of an inpatient computerized physician order entry system on prescribing practices.

Methods: A time series analysis was performed at an urban academic medical center at which all adult inpatient orders are entered through a computerized system. When physicians enter drug orders, the computer displays drug use guidelines, offers relevant alternatives, and suggests appropriate doses and frequencies.

Result: For medication selection, use of a computerized guideline resulted in a change in use of the recommended drug (nizatidine) from 15.6% of all histamine(2)-blocker orders to 81.3% (P<.001). Implementation of dose selection menus resulted in a decrease in the SD of drug doses by 11% (P<.001). The proportion of doses that exceeded the recommended maximum decreased from 2.1% before order entry to 0.6% afterward (P<.001). Display of a recommended frequency for ondansetron hydrochloride administration resulted in an increase in the use of the approved frequency from 6% of all ondansetron orders to 75% (P<.001). The use of subcutaneous heparin sodium to prevent thrombosis in patients at bed rest increased from 24% to 47% when the computer suggested this option (P<.001). All these changes persisted at 1- and 2-year follow-up analyses.

Conclusion: Computerized physician order entry is a powerful and effective tool for improving physician prescribing practices.