Abstract
Objective To examine the impact of computerised physician order entry (CPOE) systems upon laboratory turnaround times (LTAT), namely the time from recording the collection of a blood sample to the results being reported, within a large acute hospital.
Materials and methods 1,810,311 blood samples taken between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2019 were included. Changes in LTAT over the 24 months pre- and 18 months post-CPOE implementation were analysed using a segmented regression approach. The primary analysis assessed the median LTAT across the whole hospital, with secondary analyses assessing subgroups defined by clinical settings.
Results CPOE implementation was associated with a step-change reduction in the median LTAT of 31.7 minutes (95% CI: 25.5-37.9, p<0.001). This was sustained over eighteen months post- implementation of CPOE despite the number of samples increasing by an average of 31% in this post-implementation period. Analysis by broad clinical specialty found all subgroups of wards considered to have a significant reduction in LTAT post-CPOE, either in the form of a step-change reduction, or an increasing rate of change.
Discussion and Conclusion The implementation of CPOE within an acute hospital improves the average LTAT over a prolonged period, despite an increase in the number of samples collected. This could improve care efficiencies. Understanding the likely reduction in LTAT also provides information to support an economic evaluation of the implementation of such a system into a new setting.
Competing Interest Statement
X. Zou, F. Evison, J. Hodson, J. Atia, C. Webster, M. Garrick, J. Coleman, T Pankhurst report no conflicts of interest. S Gallier reports funding support from HDRUK, MRC and NIHR. S Ball reports funding support from HDRUK. K. Nirantharakumar reports funding support from HDRUK and NIHR. E Sapey reports funding support from HDRUK, MRC, Wellcome Trust, NIHR, Alpha 1 Foundation, EPSRC and British Lung Foundation.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was supported by PIONEER, a Health Data Research Hub in Acute Care. Ethical approvals for the study were provided by the East Midlands Derby REC (reference: 20/EM/0158).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
To facilitate knowledge in this area, the anonymised participant data and a data dictionary defining each field will be available to others through application to PIONEER via the corresponding author.