A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Providing nutrition support in the electronic health record era: the good, the bad, and the ugly. | LitMetric

Providing nutrition support in the electronic health record era: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Nutr Clin Pract

Humility Mary Health Partners, Youngstown, Ohio, USA.

Published: December 2012

AI Article Synopsis

  • There is a lack of data on the quality and quantity of nutrition support features in existing electronic health record (EHR) systems.
  • A survey of members from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition evaluated the documentation and ordering processes for various nutrition-related components in EHRs, with most ratings falling in the "fair" category.
  • The study indicates a need for major improvements in EHR nutrition content and suggests that nutrition support clinicians play a crucial role in enhancing these systems.

Article Abstract

Background: Data are not available on the quantity or quality of nutrition support content in the currently available electronic health record (EHR) systems.

Materials And Methods: A survey study of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition membership regarding the safety and efficacy of nutrition documentation and the ordering process for oral diets, oral supplements, tube feedings, and parenteral nutrition in currently used EHRs was conducted. The responses were converted to a rating of excellent, good, fair, poor, or unacceptable for each component.

Results: The survey responders rated all 5 of the above EHR nutrition components only as fair. There were no differences between disciplines regarding how they rated these nutrition components. The responders who had been using their EHR for more than 10 years rated these components as fair to good, which was significantly better than those responders who have been using their EHR for less than a year, who rated these components from poor to fair. There was some variation in ratings given to the 7 different EHR vendors used by the responders, with 2 vendors having significantly poorer ratings than the other vendors. However, even the top-rated vendors received ratings of only fair.

Conclusions: This study should be a wake-up call for EHR developers/vendors, healthcare systems, and clinicians that the nutrition and nutrition support content of the current EHRs needs significant improvements. Nutrition support clinicians need to be actively involved in optimizing this EHR content.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0884533612463440DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

nutrition support
16
nutrition
9
electronic health
8
health record
8
support content
8
nutrition components
8
components fair
8
responders ehr
8
rated components
8
ehr
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!