HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jcp.2005.029983v1 59/5/533    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Westbrook, J I Articles by Germanos, T Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Westbrook, J I Articles by Germanos, T

Computerised pathology test order entry reduces laboratory turnaround times and influences tests ordered by hospital clinicians: a controlled before and after study

¹ Centre for Health Informatics, Cliffbrook Campus, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
² Centre for Health Informatics, Cliffbrook Campus, University of New South Wales
³ Central Sydney Laboratory Service, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia
⁴ Central Sydney Laboratory Service, Central Sydney Laboratory Service, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital

Correspondence to:
Associate Professor J Westbrook
Deputy Director, Centre for Health Informatics, Cliffbrook Campus, University of New South Wales, Kensington 2052, Australia; j.westbrook{at}unsw.edu.au Objective: To assess the impact of a computerised pathology order entry system on laboratory turnaround times and test ordering within a teaching hospital.

Methods: A controlled before and after study compared test assays ordered from 11 wards two months before (n = 97 851) and after (n = 113 762) the implementation of a computerised pathology order entry system (Cerner Millennium Powerchart). Comparisons were made of laboratory turnaround times, frequency of tests ordered and specimens taken, proportions of patients having tests, average number per patient, and percentage of gentamicin and vancomycin specimens labelled as random.

Results: Intervention wards experienced an average decrease in turnaround of 15.5 minutes/test assay (range 73.8 to 58.3 minutes; p<0.001). Reductions were significant for prioritised and non-prioritised tests, and for those done within and outside business hours. There was no significant change in the average number of tests (p = 0.228), or specimens per patient (p = 0.324), and no change in turnaround time for the control ward (p = 0.218). Use of structured order screens enhanced data provided to laboratories. Removing three test assays from the liver function order set resulted in significantly fewer of these tests being done.

Conclusions: Computerised order entry systems are an important element in achieving faster test results. These systems can influence test ordering patterns through structured order screens, manipulation of order sets, and analysis of real time data to assess the impact of such changes, not possible with paper based systems. The extent to which improvements translate into improved patient outcomes remains to be determined. A potentially limiting factor is clinicians’ capacity to respond to, and make use of, faster test results.

Abbreviations: POE, pathology order entry

Keywords: clinical laboratory information systems; evaluation; outcome assessment