Computerised physician order entry-related medication errors: analysis of reported errors and vulnerability testing of current systems.

IMPORTANCE: Medication computerised provider order entry (CPOE) has been shown to decrease errors and is being widely adopted. However, CPOE also has potential for introducing or contributing to errors. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to (a) analyse medication error reports where CPOE was reported as a 'contributing cause' and (b) develop 'use cases' based on these reports to test vulnerability of current CPOE systems to these errors. METHODS: A review of medication errors reported to United States Pharmacopeia MEDMARX reporting system was made, and a taxonomy was developed for CPOE-related errors. For each error we evaluated what went wrong and why and identified potential prevention strategies and recurring error scenarios. These scenarios were then used to test vulnerability of leading CPOE systems, asking typical users to enter these erroneous orders to assess the degree to which these problematic orders could be entered. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2010, 1.04 million medication errors were reported to MEDMARX, of which 63 040 were reported as CPOE related. A review of 10 060 CPOE-related cases was used to derive 101 codes describing what went wrong, 67 codes describing reasons why errors occurred, 73 codes describing potential prevention strategies and 21 codes describing recurring error scenarios. Ability to enter these erroneous order scenarios was tested on 13 CPOE systems at 16 sites. Overall, 298 (79.5%) of the erroneous orders were able to be entered including 100 (28.0%) being 'easily' placed, another 101 (28.3%) with only minor workarounds and no warnings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Medication error reports provide valuable information for understanding CPOE-related errors. Reports were useful for developing taxonomy and identifying recurring errors to which current CPOE systems are vulnerable. Enhanced monitoring, reporting and testing of CPOE systems are important to improve CPOE safety.

Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes.

OBJECTIVE: To assses the relationship between methods of documenting visit notes and note quality for primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and to determine the factors that contribute to higher quality notes for two chronic diseases. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of visit notes at two academic medical centers. Two physicians rated the subjective quality of content areas of the note (vital signs, medications, lifestyle, labs, symptoms, assessment & plan), overall quality, and completed the 9 item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). We evaluated quality ratings in relation to the primary method of documentation (templates, free-form or dictation) for both PCPs and specialists. A one factor analysis of variance test was used to examine differences in mean quality scores among the methods. RESULTS: A total of 112 physicians, 71 primary care physicians (PCP) and 41 specialists, wrote 240 notes. For specialists, templated notes had the highest overall quality scores (p≤0.001) while for PCPs, there was no statistically significant difference in overall quality score. For PCPs, free form received higher quality ratings on vital signs (p = 0.01), labs (p = 0.002), and lifestyle (p = 0.002) than other methods; templated notes had a higher rating on medications (p≤0.001). For specialists, templated notes received higher ratings on vital signs, labs, lifestyle and medications (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference in subjective quality of visit notes written using free-form documentation, dictation or templates for PCPs. The subjective quality rating of templated notes was higher than that of dictated notes for specialists. CONCLUSION: As there is wide variation in physician documentation methods, and no significant difference in note quality between methods, recommending one approach for all physicians may not deliver optimal results.

Improving inpatient antibiotic prescribing: insights from participation in a national collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance and the role antibiotic overuse plays in contributing to this problem have been widely documented and have prompted appeals to change prescribing practices. How to actually achieve such changes represents a major challenge. As part of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Breakthrough Series project Improving Prescribing Practices (IPP), in 1997-1998, Cook County Hospital (Chicago) worked with other institutions that chose antibiotics as their focus in this national collaborative. PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS: Practical suggestions are offered within six categories--adopting a general approach to improving antibiotic prescribing (marshalling credible evidence, addressing physician concerns and skepticism, and removing barriers to make it easier for prescribers to change); rethinking guidelines (providing syndrome-based guidance, revising national guidelines for local use, defining scenarios in which drug(s) can be safely withheld, offering alternatives, prospectively resolving conflicts over drug of choice and empiric regimens, and defining situations in which immediate treatment is and is not critical); getting the message out and changes implemented (using antibiotic order forms, computer order entry, and infectious disease specialist consultation); building viable linkages to leverage change (bridging disciplines); improving measurement; and promoting nondrug strategies and patients' roles in treating and preventing infection. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobials are unique, being the only class of drug therapy that affects not only the patient to whom it is prescribed but other current and future patients as well. Institutions therefore have a special responsibility to ensure their efficient and judicious use. It is often easier to prescribe antibiotics than to exercise restraint.

Fatal distraction: finance versus vigilance in U.S. hospitals.

Three decades ago, a now classic study on the sale of human blood defied conventional economic wisdom by demonstrating that a marketplace system for blood distribution was less efficient, less safe, and more costly. Emerging data, including the article by Thomas and colleagues in this issue, suggest the same may be true for hospitals. For-profit hospitals in Utah and Colorado had higher preventable adverse event rates than matched nonprofits. The author explores possible explanations, including the role of nursing care. While some claimed that a for-profit marketplace would stimulate efforts for improved quality, evidence is accumulating that report cards and profit-driven competition have failed to deliver on their promises. More promising is a series of not-for-profit initiatives to reduce errors that redirects our attention to patients and their need for better quality care. Rather than allowing competition to lower costs and avoid sick patients to distract us, our energies need to focus on better quality alternatives.

Computerized prescribing: building the electronic infrastructure for better medication usage.

Computerized prescribing in the practice of medicine is a change that is overdue. Virtually all prescriptions in the United States are still handwritten. Instead, medications should be ordered on a computer interacting with 3 databases: patient drug history, scientific drug information and guideline reference, and patient-specific (weight, laboratory) data. Current problems with prescribing on which computerized prescribing could have a positive impact include (1) drug selection; (2) patient role in pharmacotherapy risk-benefit decision making; (3) screening for interactions (drug-drug, drug-laboratory, drug-disease); (4) linkages between laboratory and pharmacy; (5) dosing calculations and scheduling; (6) coordination between team members, particularly concerning patient education; (7) monitoring and documenting adverse effects; and (8) postmarketing surveillance of therapy outcomes. Computerized prescribing is an important component of clinician order entry. Development of this tool has been impeded by a number of conceptual, implementation, and policy barriers. Overcoming these constraints will require clinically and professionally guided vision and leadership.

Commentary: diagnosis tracking and health reform.

Monitoring and feedback of diagnostic errors is essential for quality diagnosis and inimical to the direction in which the United States health delivery system is heading. Tracking diagnosis evolution longitudinally can provide rich clinical insights to improve the timeliness and accuracy of diagnosis, yet we lack even primitive systems to accomplish this function. Ten examples are listed, illustrating key questions regarding misdiagnosis. A system for tracking admitting diagnosis revision is presented as a primitive diagnosis tracking prototype. An automated system is required to generalize this system to a longitudinal outpatient setting. The perils in the implementation of diagnosis tracking include the potential for fear-inducing punitive application, tampering with appropriate diagnostic strategies due to failure to distinguish common from special cause variation, and the affixing of "price tags" to diagnoses. The latter is an especially worrisome side effect of market-driven health reform, and threatens the success of the project.

Deming meets Braverman: toward a progressive analysis of the continuous quality improvement paradigm.

The continuous quality improvement (CQI) model has rapidly become the dominant management paradigm in U.S. industrial and health care leadership circles. Despite its widespread corporate acceptance and its relevance to public sector policy issues, there has been a paucity of progressive analysis of CQI. The authors begin by noting remarkable similarities between CQI critiques of Taylorism (so-called scientific management of work) with those made by Braverman, a leading Marxist analyst of the work process. Each of the 14 principles of CQI pioneer W. E. Deming are explained and analyzed for their progressive content. These pluses are then contrasted with 18 problematic issues in an attempt to challenge and go beyond the constraints of CQI as it is currently being applied in health care and other sectors. These issues include (1) mismatch between rhetoric and reality, (2) public sector issues, and (3) broader contradictions. The authors emphasize the genuine need for improving health care quality and the relevance of CQI for addressing this need. They challenge progressives to grapple with the profound contradictions by the CQI paradigm inviting a broader dialogue on CQI's meaning for improving the public's health.

Inpatient theophylline toxicity: preventable factors.

OBJECTIVE: To identify preventable factors contributing to inpatient theophylline toxicity. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Tertiary care public hospital. PATIENTS: Forty consecutive adult inpatients (mean age, 56.5 years) with theophylline levels greater than 140 mumol/L (25.0 mg/L). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A retrospective chart audit was done. Toxicity was produced in 27 of 40 patients by inpatient or emergency department theophylline administration. Management errors found included delay (greater than 10 hours) in taking action from time toxic blood levels were drawn (20 patients), inappropriately high dosing of patients with congestive heart failure (17 patients), failure to recognize obvious symptoms (16 patients), recurrent toxicity (11 patients), additional emergency department treatment of already toxic patients (7 patients), overlap of intravenous and oral therapy (6 patients), patient discharged with no physician awareness of toxicity or dosage change (5 patients). CONCLUSIONS: A set of recurring management errors was identified as contributing to inpatient theophylline toxicity. Effective preventive mechanisms could have prevented most toxicity and associated morbidity. Theophylline's overall risk-benefit ratio in the inpatient setting may be less than that measured in well-controlled studies of the drug's efficacy because of these management errors.

Using a computerized discharge summary data base check box for adverse drug reaction monitoring.

The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have encouraged hospitals to develop mechanisms to improve reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Cook County Hospital, in Chicago, introduced a check box on a computerized discharge summary form on which the physician codes for ADRs occurring during admission. Review of the data base for a two-year period disclosed 162 well-documented ADRs, many times greater than those generated in FDA reports. The patterns of ADRs found, actions taken in response, and strengths and limitations of this system for ADR screening are reviewed. This semispontaneous screening and reporting method is found to be a valuable tool for a local hospital's ADR program, with great potential for involving physicians and providing local feedback on ADR rates.