Prescribing Practices at a Residential Treatment Center – from Paper to Plastic (Computers)
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Medication prescription procedures were reviewed at psychiatric residential treatment centers (RTC), and a quality improvement project was conducted in order to implement integrated electronic medical records (EMR) and computerized provider order entry (CPOE). To assess the impact of preexisting prescribing practices on RTCs, surveys were sent anonymously to current and past providers of regional and local RTCs. The surveys assessed the impact of the prescribing protocol on workflow, the frequency of medication errors, the impact such errors had on patient care, the overall provider satisfaction, and the discrepancies between electronic and paper charts. Current providers were then re-surveyed after implementing the integrated CPOE system in May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first round of provider survey results revealed that the majority of staff (n = 10, 70%) observed frequent medication errors and were largely dissatisfied with the current medication ordering and administration process (n = 10; 70%). Incident Response Improvement System (IRIS) reports revealed the most common medication errors were omissions, incorrect dosing, and incorrect medications administered. After the initiation and implementation of the CPOE, staff satisfaction increased with the process (n = 14; 50%) noting that medication errors were less frequent than before (n = 14; 50%).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Prescribing Practices at a Residential Treatment Center – from Paper to Plastic (Computers)
- Date Crossref
- 31/05/2023
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.