mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | MJA shop | MJA Careers | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS  | Login | Buy full access

Letters

Effect of computerised prescribing on use of antibiotics

MJA 2004; 180 (3): 140-141

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%

  1. Newby DA, Fryer JL, Henry DA. Effect of computerised prescribing on use of antibiotics. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 210-213. <eMJA full text> <PubMed>
  2. Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Second national report on patient safety — Improving medication safety. Canberra: Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2002: 39-46.
  3. Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6: 313-321. <PubMed>
  4. Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, et al, editors. A critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence report/Technology assessment No. 43. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001. (AHRQ Publication No. 01-E058.)

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2004 www.mja.com.au ISSN: 0025-729X


Home | Issues | MJA shop | Terms of use | MJA Careers | More... | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS 

mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia