↓ Skip to main content

Computerized physician order entry of a sedation protocol is not associated with improved sedation practice or outcomes in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computerized physician order entry of a sedation protocol is not associated with improved sedation practice or outcomes in critically ill patients
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0161-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samir H. Haddad, Catherine B. Gonzales, Ahmad M. Deeb, Hani M. Tamim, Abdulaziz S. AlDawood, Ibrahim Al Babtain, Brintha S. Naidu, Yaseen M. Arabi

Abstract

Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) analgesia-sedation protocols may improve sedation practice and patients' outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the introduction of CPOE protocol. This was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation, requiring intravenous infusion of analgesics and/or sedatives, and expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) ≥24 h. As a quality improvement project, the study had three phases: phase 1, no protocol, July 1st to September 30th, 2010; phase 2, post implementation of CPOE protocol, October 1st to December 31st, 2010; and phase 3, revised (age, kidney and liver function adjusted) CPOE protocol, August 1st to October 31st, 2011. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine the independent predictors of mortality. Two hundred seventy nine patients were included (no protocol = 91, CPOE protocol = 97, revised CPOE protocol = 91). Implementation of CPOE protocol was associated with increase of the average daily dose of fentanyl (3720 ± 3286 vs. 2647 ± 2212 mcg/day; p = 0.009) and decrease of hospital length of stay (40 ± 37 vs. 63 ± 85 days, p = 0.02). The revised CPOE protocol was associated with, compared to the CPOE protocol, a decrease of the average daily dose of fentanyl (2208 ± 2115 vs. 3720 ± 3286 mcg/day, p = 0.0002) and lorazepam (0 ± 0 vs. 0.06 ± 0.26 mg/day, p = 0.04), sedation-related complications during ICU stay (3.3 % vs. 29.9 %, p <0.0001), and ICU mortality (18 % vs. 39 %, p = 0.001). The impact of the revised CPOE protocol was more evident on patients aged >70 years or with severe kidney or liver impairment. Both the original CPOE protocol and the revised CPOE protocol were not independent predictors of ICU (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.85, confidence interval [CI] = 0.90-3.78; p = 0.09; aOR = 0.70, CI = 0.32-1.53, p = 0.37; respectively) or hospital mortality (aOR = 1.12, CI = 0.57-2.21, p = 0.74; aOR = 0.80, CI = 0.40-1.59, p = 0.52; respectively). The implementation of a CPOE analgesia-sedation protocol was not associated with improved sedation practices or patients' outcome but with unpredicted increases of an analgesic dose. However, the revised CPOE protocol (age, kidney and liver function adjusted) was associated with improved sedation practices. This study highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the impact of changes in practice to detect unanticipated outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 17%
Engineering 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,251,146
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#289
of 1,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,376
of 388,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#7
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,503 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.