Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Medication errors with electronic prescribing (eP): two views of the same picture

By Imogen Savage, Tony Cornford, Ela Klecun, Nick Barber, Sarah Clifford and Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract

Background: Quantitative prospective methods are widely used to evaluate the impact of new technologies such as electronic prescribing (eP) on medication errors. However, they are labour-intensive and it is not always feasible to obtain pre-intervention data. Our objective was to compare the eP medication error picture obtained with retrospective quantitative and qualitative methods. Methods: The study was carried out at one English district general hospital approximately two years after implementation of an integrated electronic prescribing, administration and records system. Quantitative: A structured retrospective analysis was carried out of clinical records and medication orders for 75 randomly selected patients admitted to three wards ( medicine, surgery and paediatrics) six months after eP implementation. Qualitative: Eight doctors, 6 nurses, 8 pharmacy staff and 4 other staff at senior, middle and junior grades, and 19 adult patients on acute surgical and medical wards were interviewed. Staff interviews explored experiences of developing and working with the system; patient interviews focused on experiences of medicine prescribing and administration on the ward. Interview transcripts were searched systematically for accounts of medication incidents. A classification scheme was developed and applied to the errors identified in the records review. Results: The two approaches produced similar pictures of the drug use process. Interviews identified types of error identified in the retrospective notes review plus two eP-specific errors which were not detected by record review. Interview data took less time to collect than record review, and provided rich data on the prescribing process, and reasons for delays or non-administration of medicines, including "once only" orders and "as required" medicines. Conclusions: The qualitative approach provided more understanding of processes, and some insights into why medication errors can happen. The method is cost-effective and could be used to supplement information from anonymous error reporting scheme

Topics: R Medicine (General)
Publisher: BioMed
Year: 2010
DOI identifier: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-135
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:28971
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2007). BD: The effects of electronic prescribing on the quality of prescribing. doi
  2. (2003). Case record review of adverse events: a new approach. Qual Saf Health Care doi
  3. (2007). Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection: The Best Medicine. Managing medicines in acute and specialist trusts.
  4. (2007). Electronic prescribing- "I want it and I want it now!". Hospital Pharmacist
  5. (2000). Electronic prescribing-the way forward.
  6. (2008). Faxvaag A: No paper but the same routines: a qualitative exploration of experiences in two Norwegian hospitals deprived of the paper-based medical record. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making doi
  7. (2005). Hiding in plain sight: What Koppel et al tell us about healthcare IT. doi
  8. (2006). Klecun E, Savage I: Safer, faster, better? Evaluating electronic prescribing.
  9. (2007). Klecun E: Qualitative evaluation of an electronic prescribing and administration system. Qual Saf Health Care doi
  10. (2005). Medication errors: a prospective cohort study of hand-written and computerised physician order entry in the intensive care unit. Clinical Care
  11. (2000). MS: To Err is Human: Building a safer health system Washington DC: National Academy Press; doi
  12. (2000). Nurses attitudes and beliefs about medication errors in a UK hospital. doi
  13. (2005). Office: A safer place for patients: Learning to improve patient safety. London
  14. (2008). Office: The National Programme for IT in the NHS: progress since 2006. London
  15. (1993). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. doi
  16. (2004). Scemama O: Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals. BMJ doi
  17. (2003). Spours A: Electronic prescribing and medicines administration: are we overcoming the barriers to success? Br J Healthcare Comput Info Manage
  18. (2005). Strom BL: Role of computerised physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA
  19. (2007). The attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals on the causes and reporting of medication errors in a UK ICU. Anaesthesia doi
  20. (2001). The Bayswater Institute: Research evaluation of the early NHS electronic record pilot sites. London
  21. (2007). The impact of a closed loop electronic prescribing and automated dispensing system on the ward pharmacist's time and activities. Int J Pharm Pract doi
  22. (2007). The impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing and administration system on prescribing errors, administration errors and staff time: a before and after study. Qual Saf Health Care doi
  23. (2005). The incidence of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients - an overview of the research methods. Drug Saf doi
  24. (2000). What is a prescribing error? Qual Health Care

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.