| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on January 12, 2007
Accepted on August 7, 2007
Affiliation of the authors: 1 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA ; 2 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA ; 3 The Everett Clinic, Everett WA; 4 Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 5 Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Electronic prescribing has improved the quality and safety of care. One barrier preventing widespread adoption is the potential detrimental impact on workflow. We used time-motion techniques to compare prescribing times at three ambulatory care sites that used paper-based prescribing, desktop, or laptop e-prescribing. An observer timed all prescriber (n=27) and staff (n=42) tasks performed during a 4-hour period. At the sites with optional e-prescribing >75% of prescription-related events were performed electronically. Prescribers at e-prescribing sites spent less time writing, but time-savings were offset by increased computer tasks. After adjusting for site, prescriber and prescription type, e-prescribing tasks took marginally longer than hand written prescriptions (12.0 seconds; -1.6, 25.6 CI). Nursing staff at the e-prescribing sites spent longer on computer tasks (5.4 minutes/hour; 0.0, 10.7 CI). E-prescribing was not associated with an increase in combined computer and writing time for prescribers. If carefully implemented, e-prescribing will not greatly disrupt workflow.
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |