Inpatient computer-based standing orders vs physician reminders to increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates: A randomized trial

Paul R. Dexter, Susan M. Perkins, Kati S. Maharry, Kathy Jones, Clement J. McDonald

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

142 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Computerized reminder systems increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates, but computerized standing order systems have not been previously described or evaluated. Objective: To determine the effects of computerized physician standing orders compared with physician reminders on inpatient vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized trial of 3777 general medicine patients discharged from 1 of 6 study wards during a 14-month period (November 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999) composed of 2 overlapping influenza seasons at an urban public teaching hospital. Interventions: The hospital's computerized physician order entry system identified inpatients eligible for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. For patients with standing orders, the system automatically produced vaccine orders directed to nurses at the time of patient discharge. For patients with reminders, the computer system provided reminders to physicians that included vaccine orders during routine order entry sessions. Main Outcome Measure: Vaccine administration. Results: During the approximately 6 months of the influenza season, 50% of all hospitalized patients were identified as eligible for influenza vaccination. Twenty-two percent of patients hospitalized during the entire 14 months of the study were found eligible for pneumococcal vaccination. Patients with standing orders received an influenza vaccine significantly more often (42%) than those patients with reminders (30%) (P<.001). Patients with standing orders received a pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often (51%) than those with reminders (31%) (P<.001). Conclusions: Computerized standing orders were more effective than computerized reminders for increasing both influenza and pneumococcal vaccine administration. Our findings suggest that computerized standing orders should be used more widely for this purpose.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2366-2371
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume292
Issue number19
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 17 2004

Fingerprint

Human Influenza
Inpatients
Vaccination
Physicians
Reminder Systems
Pneumococcal Vaccines
Vaccines
Influenza Vaccines
Medical Order Entry Systems
Standing Orders
Patient Discharge
Public Hospitals
Urban Hospitals
Computer Systems
Teaching Hospitals
Nurses
Medicine
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Inpatient computer-based standing orders vs physician reminders to increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates : A randomized trial. / Dexter, Paul R.; Perkins, Susan M.; Maharry, Kati S.; Jones, Kathy; McDonald, Clement J.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 292, No. 19, 17.11.2004, p. 2366-2371.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e40bbf66b873459c82a456b452b7ab2e,
title = "Inpatient computer-based standing orders vs physician reminders to increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Context: Computerized reminder systems increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates, but computerized standing order systems have not been previously described or evaluated. Objective: To determine the effects of computerized physician standing orders compared with physician reminders on inpatient vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized trial of 3777 general medicine patients discharged from 1 of 6 study wards during a 14-month period (November 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999) composed of 2 overlapping influenza seasons at an urban public teaching hospital. Interventions: The hospital's computerized physician order entry system identified inpatients eligible for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. For patients with standing orders, the system automatically produced vaccine orders directed to nurses at the time of patient discharge. For patients with reminders, the computer system provided reminders to physicians that included vaccine orders during routine order entry sessions. Main Outcome Measure: Vaccine administration. Results: During the approximately 6 months of the influenza season, 50{\%} of all hospitalized patients were identified as eligible for influenza vaccination. Twenty-two percent of patients hospitalized during the entire 14 months of the study were found eligible for pneumococcal vaccination. Patients with standing orders received an influenza vaccine significantly more often (42{\%}) than those patients with reminders (30{\%}) (P<.001). Patients with standing orders received a pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often (51{\%}) than those with reminders (31{\%}) (P<.001). Conclusions: Computerized standing orders were more effective than computerized reminders for increasing both influenza and pneumococcal vaccine administration. Our findings suggest that computerized standing orders should be used more widely for this purpose.",
author = "Dexter, {Paul R.} and Perkins, {Susan M.} and Maharry, {Kati S.} and Kathy Jones and McDonald, {Clement J.}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1001/jama.292.19.2366",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "292",
pages = "2366--2371",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "19",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inpatient computer-based standing orders vs physician reminders to increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates

T2 - A randomized trial

AU - Dexter, Paul R.

AU - Perkins, Susan M.

AU - Maharry, Kati S.

AU - Jones, Kathy

AU - McDonald, Clement J.

PY - 2004/11/17

Y1 - 2004/11/17

N2 - Context: Computerized reminder systems increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates, but computerized standing order systems have not been previously described or evaluated. Objective: To determine the effects of computerized physician standing orders compared with physician reminders on inpatient vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized trial of 3777 general medicine patients discharged from 1 of 6 study wards during a 14-month period (November 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999) composed of 2 overlapping influenza seasons at an urban public teaching hospital. Interventions: The hospital's computerized physician order entry system identified inpatients eligible for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. For patients with standing orders, the system automatically produced vaccine orders directed to nurses at the time of patient discharge. For patients with reminders, the computer system provided reminders to physicians that included vaccine orders during routine order entry sessions. Main Outcome Measure: Vaccine administration. Results: During the approximately 6 months of the influenza season, 50% of all hospitalized patients were identified as eligible for influenza vaccination. Twenty-two percent of patients hospitalized during the entire 14 months of the study were found eligible for pneumococcal vaccination. Patients with standing orders received an influenza vaccine significantly more often (42%) than those patients with reminders (30%) (P<.001). Patients with standing orders received a pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often (51%) than those with reminders (31%) (P<.001). Conclusions: Computerized standing orders were more effective than computerized reminders for increasing both influenza and pneumococcal vaccine administration. Our findings suggest that computerized standing orders should be used more widely for this purpose.

AB - Context: Computerized reminder systems increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates, but computerized standing order systems have not been previously described or evaluated. Objective: To determine the effects of computerized physician standing orders compared with physician reminders on inpatient vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized trial of 3777 general medicine patients discharged from 1 of 6 study wards during a 14-month period (November 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999) composed of 2 overlapping influenza seasons at an urban public teaching hospital. Interventions: The hospital's computerized physician order entry system identified inpatients eligible for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. For patients with standing orders, the system automatically produced vaccine orders directed to nurses at the time of patient discharge. For patients with reminders, the computer system provided reminders to physicians that included vaccine orders during routine order entry sessions. Main Outcome Measure: Vaccine administration. Results: During the approximately 6 months of the influenza season, 50% of all hospitalized patients were identified as eligible for influenza vaccination. Twenty-two percent of patients hospitalized during the entire 14 months of the study were found eligible for pneumococcal vaccination. Patients with standing orders received an influenza vaccine significantly more often (42%) than those patients with reminders (30%) (P<.001). Patients with standing orders received a pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often (51%) than those with reminders (31%) (P<.001). Conclusions: Computerized standing orders were more effective than computerized reminders for increasing both influenza and pneumococcal vaccine administration. Our findings suggest that computerized standing orders should be used more widely for this purpose.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=8544283806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=8544283806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.292.19.2366

DO - 10.1001/jama.292.19.2366

M3 - Article

C2 - 15547164

AN - SCOPUS:8544283806

VL - 292

SP - 2366

EP - 2371

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 19

ER -