Cookies?
Library Header Image
LSE Research Online LSE Library Services

The association of a critical care electronic prescribing system with the quality of patient care provided by clinical pharmacists - a prospective, observational cohort study

Mehta, Reena, Onatade, Raliat, Vlachos, Savvas, Sloss, Rhona and Maharaj, Ritesh ORCID: 0000-0003-3667-2426 (2023) The association of a critical care electronic prescribing system with the quality of patient care provided by clinical pharmacists - a prospective, observational cohort study. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 177. ISSN 1386-5056

[img] Text (The association of a critical care electronic prescribing system with the quality of patient care provided by clinical pharmacists) - Accepted Version
Repository staff only until 11 June 2024.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (322kB) | Request a copy

Identification Number: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105119

Abstract

Background: Despite the strong face validity of electronic prescribing (EP), the empiric data in support of improved patient safety is sparse. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical significance of pharmacist contributions between an established EP and paper-based prescribing (PBP) system in the intensive care unit (ICU) to understand the EP impact on the quality of patient care. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study in two 18-bed ICUs; one with EP and the other, PBP. Pharmacist contributions were analysed over three months. Demographic, clinical and adjunctive intervention data were also collected. A multilevel ordinal logistic regression model was used and patients were followed up for 28 days. The primary outcome was the distribution of clinical significance levels of pharmacist contributions. Results: There were 303 patients admitted to the ICU between April 1st and June 30th 2018. EP was used in 171 patients and PBP in 132 patients. 1658 contributions were analysed. There were 14.9% highly clinically significant contributions with EP compared to 44.6% with PBP. The EP group had lower odds (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02–0.12) for a higher clinical significance contribution compared to the PBP group, but this changed over the admission and differed between groups, with decreasing odds of a higher-level clinical contribution for each additional admission day with PBP (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.42–0.78). Conclusion: This study showed a significant difference in the distribution of pharmacist contributions made over time, with clinical significance levels remaining stable in the EP group at low severity, as opposed to PBP which were initially high and then gradually decreased in severity over time. This contemporaneous controlled study found that the EP system required less significant input both in the severity and frequency of pharmacist contributions to maintain patient safety.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Crown Copyright © 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Divisions: Health Policy
Subjects: R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
R Medicine > RS Pharmacy and materia medica
Date Deposited: 30 Jun 2023 08:42
Last Modified: 27 Feb 2024 23:00
URI: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/119518

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics