Objectives To explore physicians' and nurses' expectations before and experiences after the implementation of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system in order to give suggestions for future optimization of the system as well as the implementation process. Method On four internal medicine wards of two Dutch hospitals, 18 physicians and 42 nurses were interviewed to measure expectations and experiences with the CPOE system. Using semi-structured questionnaires, expectations and experiences of physicians and nurses with the CPOE system were measured with statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). The percentage respondents agreeing (score of 4 or 5) was calculated. Chi-squared tests were used to compare the expectations versus experiences of physicians and nurses and to assess the differences between physicians and nurses. Results In general, both physicians and nurses were positive about CPOE before and after the implementation of this system. Physicians and nurses did not differ in their views towards CPOE except for the overview of patients' medication use that was not clear according to the nurses. Both professions were satisfied with the implementation process. CPOE could be improved especially with respect to technical aspects (including the medication overview) and decision support on drug-drug interactions. Conclusion Overall we conclude that physicians and nurses are positive about CPOE and the process of its implementation and do accept these systems. However, these systems should be further improved to fit into clinical practice.

CPOE system, expectations, experiences, implementation
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01187.x, hdl.handle.net/1765/20363
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Print)
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

van Doormaal, J.E, Mol, P.G.M, Zaal, R.J, van den Bemt, P.M.L.A, Kosterink, J.G.W, Vermeulen, K.M, & Haaijer-Ruskamp, F.M. (2010). Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system: Expectations and experiences of users. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (Print), 16(4), 738–743. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01187.x