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

Development and Evaluation of an Intravenous Infusion Sequence Annotation System. | LitMetric

Objectives: The sequence of intravenous infusions may impact the efficacy, safety, and cost of intravenous medications. The study describes and assesses a computerized clinical decision support annotation system capable of analyzing the sequence of intravenous infusions.

Methods: All intravenous medications on the hospital formulary were analyzed based on factors that impact intravenous infusion sequence. Eight pharmacy infusion knowledge databases were constructed based on Hospital Infusion Standards. These databases were incorporated into the computerized sequence annotation module within the electronic health record system. The annotation process was changed from pharmacists' manual annotation (phase 1) to computer-aided pharmacist manual annotation (phase 2) to automated computer annotation (phase 3).

Results: Comparing phase 2 to phase 1, there were significant differences in sequence annotation with regards to the percentage of hospital wards annotated (100% vs. 4.65%, chi-square  = 180.95,  < 0.001), percentage of patients annotated (64.18% vs. 0.52%, chi-square = 90.46,  < 0.001), percentage of intravenous orders annotated (75.67% vs. 0.77%, chi-square = 118.78,  < 0.001), and the number of tubing flushes per ward per day (118.51 vs. 2,115.00,  < 0.001). Compared with phase 1, there were significant cost savings in tubing flushes in phase 2 and phase 3. Compared with phase 1, there was significant difference in the time nurses spent on tubing flushes in phase 2 and phase 3 (1,244.94 vs. 21,684.8 minutes,  < 0.001; 1,369.51 vs. 21,684.8 minutes,  < 0.001). Compared with phase 1, significantly less time was required for pharmacist annotation in phase 2 and phase 3 (90.6 vs. 4,753.57 minutes,  < 0.001; 0.05 vs. 4,753.57 minutes,  < 0.001).

Conclusion: A computerized infusion annotation system is efficient in sequence annotation and significant savings in tubing flushes can be achieved as a result.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7857956PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1722871DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sequence annotation
12
annotation phase
12
intravenous infusion
8
infusion sequence
8
annotation
8
annotation system
8
sequence intravenous
8
intravenous medications
8
manual annotation
8
intravenous
6

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!