Effects of Two Commercial Electronic Prescribing Systems on Prescribing Error Rates in Hospital In-Patients: A Before and After Study
Background:
Considerable investments are being made in commercial electronic prescribing systems (e-prescribing) in many countries. Few studies have measured or evaluated their effectiveness at reducing prescribing error rates, and interactions between system design and errors are not well understood, despite increasing concerns regarding new errors associated with system use. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two commercial e-prescribing systems in reducing prescribing error rates and their propensities for introducing new types of error.
Methods and Results:
We conducted a before and after study involving medication chart audit of 3,291 admissions (1,923 at baseline and 1,368 post e-prescribing system) at two Australian teaching hospitals. In Hospital A, the Cerner Millennium e-prescribing system was implemented on one ward, and three wards, which did not receive the e-prescribing system, acted as controls. In Hospital B, the iSoft MedChart system was implemented on two wards and we compared before and after error rates. Procedural (e.g., unclear and incomplete prescribing orders) and clinical (e.g., wrong dose, wrong drug) errors were identified. Prescribing error rates per admission and per 100 patient days; rates of serious errors (5-point severity scale, those ≥3 were categorised as serious) by hospital and study period; and rates and categories of postintervention “system-related” errors (where system functionality or design contributed to the error) were calculated. Use of an e-prescribing system was associated with a statistically significant reduction in error rates in all three intervention wards (respectively reductions of 66.1% [95% CI 53.9%–78.3%]; 57.5% [33.8%–81.2%]; and 60.5% [48.5%–72.4%]). The use of the system resulted in a decline in errors at Hospital A from 6.25 per admission (95% CI 5.23–7.28) to 2.12 (95% CI 1.71–2.54; p<0.0001) and at Hospital B from 3.62 (95% CI 3.30–3.93) to 1.46 (95% CI 1.20–1.73; p<0.0001). This decrease was driven by a large reduction in unclear, illegal, and incomplete orders. The Hospital A control wards experienced no significant change (respectively −12.8% [95% CI −41.1% to 15.5%]; −11.3% [−40.1% to 17.5%]; −20.1% [−52.2% to 12.4%]). There was limited change in clinical error rates, but serious errors decreased by 44% (0.25 per admission to 0.14; p = 0.0002) across the intervention wards compared to the control wards (17% reduction; 0.30–0.25; p = 0.40). Both hospitals experienced system-related errors (0.73 and 0.51 per admission), which accounted for 35% of postsystem errors in the intervention wards; each system was associated with different types of system-related errors.
Conclusions:
Implementation of these commercial e-prescribing systems resulted in statistically significant reductions in prescribing error rates. Reductions in clinical errors were limited in the absence of substantial decision support, but a statistically significant decline in serious errors was observed. System-related errors require close attention as they are frequent, but are potentially remediable by system redesign and user training. Limitations included a lack of control wards at Hospital B and an inability to randomize wards to the intervention.
: Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Vyšlo v časopise:
Effects of Two Commercial Electronic Prescribing Systems on Prescribing Error Rates in Hospital In-Patients: A Before and After Study. PLoS Med 9(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001164
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001164
Souhrn
Background:
Considerable investments are being made in commercial electronic prescribing systems (e-prescribing) in many countries. Few studies have measured or evaluated their effectiveness at reducing prescribing error rates, and interactions between system design and errors are not well understood, despite increasing concerns regarding new errors associated with system use. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two commercial e-prescribing systems in reducing prescribing error rates and their propensities for introducing new types of error.
Methods and Results:
We conducted a before and after study involving medication chart audit of 3,291 admissions (1,923 at baseline and 1,368 post e-prescribing system) at two Australian teaching hospitals. In Hospital A, the Cerner Millennium e-prescribing system was implemented on one ward, and three wards, which did not receive the e-prescribing system, acted as controls. In Hospital B, the iSoft MedChart system was implemented on two wards and we compared before and after error rates. Procedural (e.g., unclear and incomplete prescribing orders) and clinical (e.g., wrong dose, wrong drug) errors were identified. Prescribing error rates per admission and per 100 patient days; rates of serious errors (5-point severity scale, those ≥3 were categorised as serious) by hospital and study period; and rates and categories of postintervention “system-related” errors (where system functionality or design contributed to the error) were calculated. Use of an e-prescribing system was associated with a statistically significant reduction in error rates in all three intervention wards (respectively reductions of 66.1% [95% CI 53.9%–78.3%]; 57.5% [33.8%–81.2%]; and 60.5% [48.5%–72.4%]). The use of the system resulted in a decline in errors at Hospital A from 6.25 per admission (95% CI 5.23–7.28) to 2.12 (95% CI 1.71–2.54; p<0.0001) and at Hospital B from 3.62 (95% CI 3.30–3.93) to 1.46 (95% CI 1.20–1.73; p<0.0001). This decrease was driven by a large reduction in unclear, illegal, and incomplete orders. The Hospital A control wards experienced no significant change (respectively −12.8% [95% CI −41.1% to 15.5%]; −11.3% [−40.1% to 17.5%]; −20.1% [−52.2% to 12.4%]). There was limited change in clinical error rates, but serious errors decreased by 44% (0.25 per admission to 0.14; p = 0.0002) across the intervention wards compared to the control wards (17% reduction; 0.30–0.25; p = 0.40). Both hospitals experienced system-related errors (0.73 and 0.51 per admission), which accounted for 35% of postsystem errors in the intervention wards; each system was associated with different types of system-related errors.
Conclusions:
Implementation of these commercial e-prescribing systems resulted in statistically significant reductions in prescribing error rates. Reductions in clinical errors were limited in the absence of substantial decision support, but a statistically significant decline in serious errors was observed. System-related errors require close attention as they are frequent, but are potentially remediable by system redesign and user training. Limitations included a lack of control wards at Hospital B and an inability to randomize wards to the intervention.
: Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Zdroje
1. BatesDTeichJLeeJSegarDKupermanG 1999 The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 6 313 321
2. BatesDLeapeLCullenDLairdNPetersonL 1998 Effect of computerized order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 280 1311 1316
3. Institute of Medicine 2007 Preventing medication errors Washington (D.C.) National Academy Press
4. RougheadE 1999 The nature and extent of drug-related hospitalisations in Australia. J Qual Clin Pract 19 19 22
5. WestbrookJWoodsARobMIDunsmuirWTMDayR 2010 Association of interruptions with increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med 170 683 690
6. BlackACarJPagliariCAnandanCCresswellK 2011 The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 8 e1000387 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387
7. ChaudhryBWangJWuSMaglioneMMojicaW 2006 Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 144 742 752
8. McKibbonKLokkerCHandlerSDolovichLRHolbrookA 2011 Enabling medication management through health information technology Rockville (Maryland) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 1 925
9. ReckmannMWestbrookJKohYLoCDayR 2009 Does computerized provider order entry reduce prescribing errors for hospital inpatients? A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 16 613 623
10. AshJSBergMCoieraE 2004 Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 11 104 112
11. KoppelRMetlayJCohenAAbaluckBLocalioA 2005 Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 293 1197 1203
12. WestbrookJBraithwaiteJGeorgiouAAmptACreswickN 2007 Multi-method evaluation of information and communication technologies in health in the context of wicked problems and socio-technical theory. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14 746 755
13. DayRRoffeDRichardsonKBaysariMBrennanN 2011 Implementing electronic medication management at an Australian teaching hospital. Med J Aust 195 498 502
14. AshJSStavriPZKupermanGJ 2003 A consensus statement on considerations for a successful CPOE implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10 229 234
15. CallenJBraithwaiteJWestbrookJ 2007 Cultures in hospitals and their influence on attitudes to, and satisfaction with, the use of clinical information systems. Soc Sci Med 65 635 639
16. CallenJBraithwaiteJWestbrookJ 2008 Context implementation model: a model for assisting clinical information system implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 15 255 262
17. HanYCarcilloJVenkataramanSClarkeRWatsonR 2005 Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 116 1506 1512
18. LoCBurkeRWestbrookJ 2010 Comparison of pharmacists' work patterns on hospital wards with and without an electronic medication management system (eMMS). J Pharm Pract Res 40 108 112
19. FiellerE 1954 Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 16 175 185
20. SAS Institute SAS Proprietary Software Release 9.2 Cary (North Carolina) SAS Institute
21. AmmenwerthESchnell-InderstPMachanCSiebertU 2008 The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 15 585 600
22. StromBSchinnarRBilkerWHennessySLeanardC 2010 Randomized clinical trial of a customized electronic alert requiring an affirmative response compared to a control group receiving a commercial passive CPOE alert: NSAID-warfarin co-prescribing as a test case. J Am Med Inform Assoc 17 411 415
23. TerrellDPerkinsKDexterAHiuiPCallahanC 2009 Computerized decision support to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing to older emergency department patient: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatric Soc 57 13881394
24. BennettJWGlasziouPDel MarCDe LoozeF 2003 A computerised prescribing decision support system to improve patient adherence with prescribing. A randomised controlled trial. Aust Fam Physcian 32 667 671
25. GargAAdhikariNMcDonaldH 2005 Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes. A systematic review. JAMA 293 1223 1238
26. HuntDHaynesBHannaSSmithK 1998 Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 280 1339 1346
27. KhorasaniR 2001 Computerized physician order entry and decision support: improving the quality of care. Radiographics 21 1015 1018
28. WolfstadtJIGurwitzJHFieldTSLeeMKalkarS 2008 The effect of computerized physician order entry with clinical decision support on the rates of adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 23 451 458
29. SittigDFKrallMADykstraRHRussellAChinHL 2006 A survey of factors affecting clinician acceptance of clinical decision support. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making 6 6
30. BatesDWKupermanGJWangSGandhiTKittlerA 2003 Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10 523 530
31. BaysariMWestbrookJDayR 2011 Narrative review: errors in selecting medicines for prescription and the role of computerized decision support. Drug Safety 34 289 298
32. BobbAMPayneTHGrossPA 2007 Viewpoint: controversies surrounding use of order sets for clinical decision support in computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14 41 47
33. CoieraEWestbrookJWyattJ 2006 The safety and quality of decision support systems. Meth Inform Med 45 S20 25
34. ColombetIBura-RiviereAChatilaRChatellierGDurieuxP 2004 Personalized versus non-personalized computerized decision support system to increase therapeutic quality control of oral anticoagulant therapy: an alternating time series analysis. BMC Health Ser Res 4 27
35. ElwynGLegareFvan der WeijdenTEdwardsAMayC 2008 Arduous implementation: does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implement Sci 3 57
36. OsheroffJAPiferEATeichJMSittigDFJendersRA 2005 Improving outcomes with clinical decision support: an implementer's guide Chicago Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society
37. BaysariMWestbrookJRichardsonKDayR 2011 The influence of computerized decision support on prescribing during ward-rounds: are the decision-makers targeted? J Am Med Inform Assoc 18 754 759
38. CoombesIStowasserDReidCMitchellC 2009 Impact of a standard medication chart on prescribing errors: a before and after audit. Qual Safety Healthcare 18 478 485
39. SavageICornfordTKlecunEBarberNCliffordS 2010 Medication errors with electronic prescribing (eP): two views of the same picture. BMC Hlth Ser Res 10
40. CornfordTSavageIJaniYDean FranklinBBarberN 2010 Learning lessons from electronic prescribing implementations in secondary care. SafranCRetiSMarinH 13th World Congress on Medical Informatics Amsterdam IOS Press
41. CatwellLSheikhA 2009 Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systematic evaluation. PLoS Med 6 e1000126 doi:1000110.1001371/journal.pmed.1000126
42. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Ottawa, Canada Cochrane Collaboration
43. GreenhalghTSrtamerKBratanTByrneERussellJ 2010 The devil's in the detail: final report of the independent evaluation of the Summary Care Record and HealthSpace programs London University College London
44. GreenhalghTRussellJ 2010 Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med 7 e1000360 doi:1000310.1001371/journal.pmed.1000360
45. LilfordRFosterJPringleM 2009 Evaluating eHealth: how to make evaluation more methodologically robust. PLoS Med 6 e1000186 doi:1000110.1001371/journal.pmed.1000186
46. GeorgiouAAmptACreswickNWestbrookJBraithwaiteJ 2009 Computerized provider order entry-What are health professionals concerned about? A qualitative study in an Australian hospital. Int J Med Inform 78 60 70
47. New South Wales Health Department 2005 Severity Assessment Code (SAC) Matrix Sydney NSW Health
Štítky
Interné lekárstvoČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Medicine
2012 Číslo 1
- Jak rozpoznat pacienty s familiární hypercholesterolémií ve své praxi
- Myasthenia gravis: kombinace chirurgie a farmakoterapie jako nejefektivnější modalita?
- Statinová intolerance
- Parazitičtí červi v terapii Crohnovy choroby a dalších zánětlivých autoimunitních onemocnění
- Mutace v genu PCSK9 zodpovědné za rozvoj familiární hypercholesterolémie
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- What Will It Take to Eliminate Pediatric HIV? Reaching WHO Target Rates of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission in Zimbabwe: A Model-Based Analysis
- Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts
- Ensemble Modeling of the Likely Public Health Impact of a Pre-Erythrocytic Malaria Vaccine
- Adult Mortality Attributable to Preventable Risk Factors for Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries in Japan: A Comparative Risk Assessment