|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search |
→ Previous article in this issue
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on Pharmacology
→ More articles on Informatics and computers
Ian D Coombes,* Danielle A Stowasser,† Charles A Mitchell,‡ Paul Varghese§
* Leader, Adverse Drug Event Prevention Project, Queensland Health Medication Management Services, ‡ Associate Professor of Medicine, § Director of Geriatric Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102; †Manager, Queensland Health Medication Management Services, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Brisbane, QLD. Ian_coombesAThealth.qld.gov.au
To the Editor: We would like to add our perspective to the discussion on computerised prescribing.1 Electronic prescribing with appropriate decision support is recognised by the Medication Safety Taskforce of the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care as a key initiative to prevent patient harm.2 Such systems reduce the opportunity for prescribing errors and improve patient safety.3
The widely espoused benefit of the clarity and legibility associated with electronic prescribing appears to have led many to assume that electronic prescribing is an essential component of medication safety systems whether or not it includes a decision support system.
In fact, electronic prescribing without decision support has been associated with an increase in the incidence of error4 and inappropriate use of medications.1
A computer-generated discharge summary was developed at a tertiary referral teaching hospital in Brisbane. With this system, a discharge prescription was generated using information entered from the database by the medical officer.
As part of standard practice, a pharmacist reviews all discharge prescriptions and compares them with the inpatient medication chart, discussing any apparent errors with the medical officer. We conducted an audit of 200 consecutive medical discharge prescriptions (100 generated by computer and 100 handwritten) in mid-2001. The errors detected are summarised in the Box. The same medical staff were responsible for both types of prescriptions. Significantly more errors in prescribing were noted for the computer-generated prescriptions than for the handwritten scripts (P < 0.001). The proportion of errors with potential for harm was similar in both groups.
Three specific types of error occurred more frequently with electronic prescribing. We can speculate that dosing errors occurred when previous discharges were copied and the previous dose was continued, duration errors occurred as a result of a computer default to 10 days’ therapy, and the continuation of drugs not required for discharge resulted from copying previous medication records and not reviewing the current drugs prescribed.
This uncontrolled observational audit demonstrated that electronic prescribing without decision support in busy medical wards can significantly increase the risk of patient harm when compared with the handwritten system. The discharge prescription component of this system was withdrawn on the basis of this audit, and the paper-based system reinstituted until a safer alternative becomes available.
1: Comparison of error rates with electronic and handwritten discharge prescribing systems
Examples of prescribing errors |
Computer |
Handwritten |
|||||||||
Number of prescriptions |
|
100 |
100 |
||||||||
Number of drugs |
|
700 |
605 |
||||||||
Omissions |
Warfarin and irbesartan omitted |
12 |
16 |
||||||||
Duplications |
Spironolactone and atorvastatin duplicated |
2 |
0 |
||||||||
Dosing errors |
Prednisolone 50 mg in the morning for 10 days ordered: should have been reducing by 10 mg every second day |
25 |
5 |
||||||||
Drug errors |
Diltiazem oral 60 mg three times a day ordered: should have been diltiazem slow release 180 mg in the morning |
4 |
4 |
||||||||
Drug name unclear |
Fluticasone inhaler: no strength |
6 |
0 |
||||||||
Duration error |
Antibiotics intended for 3 or 5 days: ordered for 10 days (default quantity) |
13 |
1 |
||||||||
Drug not required on discharge |
Frusemide 80 mg twice daily was continued: the drug had been stopped during admission |
15 |
4 |
||||||||
Route error |
Glyceryl trinitrate 5 mg oral ordered: patch was the intended form of drug |
3 |
0 |
||||||||
Frequency error |
Carvedilol ordered for mornings: had been twice daily in hospital |
1 |
0 |
||||||||
Total number of errors |
|
81 |
30 |
||||||||
Error rate per item |
|
11.6% |
5.0% |
||||||||
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2004 www.mja.com.au ISSN: 0025-729X
Graeme C Miller, Helena C Britt and Lisa Valenti. Adverse drug events in general practice patients in Australia Med J Aust 2006; 184 (7): 321-324. [Research] <http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_07_030406/mil10765_fm.html>
Ian D Coombes, Danielle A Stowasser, Judith A Coombes and Charles Mitchell. Why do interns make prescribing errors? A qualitative study Med J Aust 2008; 188 (2): 89-94. [Health Care] <http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_02_210108/coo10971_fm.html>
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |