A Systematic Review Of The Types And Causes Of Prescribing Errors Generated From Using Computerized Provider Order Entry Systems in Primary and Secondary Care

Objective To understand the different types and causes of prescribing errors associated with computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems, and recommend improvements in these systems. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature published between January 2004 and June 2015 using three large databases: the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Medline. Studies that reported qualitative data about the types and causes of these errors were included. A narrative synthesis of all eligible studies was undertaken. Results A total of 1185 publications were identified, of which 34 were included in the review. We identified 8 key themes associated with CPOE-related prescribing errors: computer screen display, drop-down menus and auto-population, wording, default settings, nonintuitive or inflexible ordering, repeat prescriptions and automated processes, users’ work processes, and clinical decision support systems. Displaying an incomplete list of a patient’s medications on the computer screen often contributed to prescribing errors. Lack of system flexibility resulted in users employing error-prone workarounds, such as the addition of contradictory free-text comments. Users’ misinterpretations of how text was presented in CPOE systems were also linked with the occurrence of prescribing errors. Discussion and Conclusions Human factors design is important to reduce error rates. Drop-down menus should be designed with safeguards to decrease the likelihood of selection errors. Development of more sophisticated clinical decision support, which can perform checks on free-text, may also prevent errors. Further research is needed to ensure that systems minimize error likelihood and meet users’ workflow expectations

A literature review of the training offered to qualified prescribers to use electronic prescribing systems: why is it so important?

Objectives A key element of the implementation and ongoing use of an electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) system is ensuring that users are, and remain, sufficiently trained to use the system. Studies have suggested that insufficient training is associated with suboptimal use. However, it is not clear from these studies how clinicians are trained to use ePrescribing systems or the effectiveness of different approaches. We sought to describe the various approaches used to train qualified prescribers on ePrescribing systems and to identify whether users were educated about the pitfalls and challenges of using these systems. Methods We performed a literature review, using a systematic approach across three large databases: Cumulative Index Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase and Medline were searched for relevant English language articles. Articles that explored the training of qualified prescribers on ePrescribing systems in a hospital setting were included. Key findings Our search of ‘all training’ approaches returned 1155 publications, of which seven were included. A separate search of ‘online’ training found three relevant publications. Training methods in the ‘all training’ category included clinical scenarios, demonstrations and assessments. Regarding ‘online’ training approaches; a team at the University of Victoria in Canada developed a portal containing simulated versions of electronic health records, where individuals could prescribe for fictitious patients. Educating prescribers about the challenges and pitfalls of electronic systems was rarely discussed. Conclusions A number of methods are used to train prescribers; however, the lack of papers retrieved suggests a need for additional studies to inform training methods

Community pharmacy interventions for public health priorities: a systematic review of community pharmacy-delivered smoking, alcohol and weight management interventions

Background: The Department of Health has identified interventions to manage alcohol misuse, smoking and overweight, delivered by community pharmacists, as public health priorities. Objectives: To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy interventions to manage alcohol misuse, smoking cessation and weight loss; to explore if and how age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status moderate effectiveness; and to describe how the interventions have been organised, implemented and delivered. Data sources: Ten electronic databases were searched: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; EMBASE; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; MEDLINE; NHS Economic Evaluation Database; PsycINFO; Social Science Citation Index; Scopus; and the Sociological Abstracts from inception to May 2014. There was no restriction on language or country. Supplementary searches included website, grey literature, study registers, bibliographies and contacting experts

Community pharmacy-delivered interventions for public health priorities: a systematic review of interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management, including meta-analysis for smoking cessation

Objectives: To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Study design: randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series. Intervention: any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language. Results: 19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 ‘strong’, 4 ‘moderate’ and 9 ‘weak’. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and costeffective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacybased weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions. Conclusions: Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services