Early adopters of electronic prescribing struggle to make meaningful use of formulary checks and medication history documentation.

INTRODUCTION: Use of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) can improve safety and reduce costs of care by alerting prescribers to drug-drug interactions, patient nonadherence to therapies, and insurance coverage information. Deriving these benefits will require clinical decision support based on presentation of accurate and complete formulary and benefit (F&B) and medication history (RxH) data to prescribers, but relatively little is known about how this information is used in primary care. METHODS: This is a multimethod comparative case study of 8 practices, which were selected to ensure practice size and physician specialty variation, implementing a stand-alone e-prescribing program. Field researchers observed prescription workflow and interviewed physicians and office staff. RESULTS: Before implementation, few prescribers reported using F&B references when making medication choices; all used paper-based methods for tracking medication history. After implementation, some prescribers reported using F&B data to inform medication choices but missing information reduced confidence in these resources. Low confidence in RxH data led to paper-based workarounds. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges experienced with formulary checks and RxH documentation led to prescriber distrust and unwillingness to rely on e-prescribing-based information. Greater data accuracy and completeness must be assured if e-prescribing is to meet meaningful use objectives to improve the efficiency and safety of prescribing in primary care settings.

Perceptions of standards-based electronic prescribing systems as implemented in outpatient primary care: a physician survey.

OBJECTIVE To compare the experiences of e-prescribing users and nonusers regarding prescription safety and workload and to assess the use of information from two e-prescribing standards (for medication history and formulary and benefit information), as they are implemented. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey of physicians who either had installed or were awaiting installation of one of two commercial e-prescribing systems. MEASUREMENTS Perceptions about medication history and formulary and benefit information among all respondents, and among e-prescribing users, experiences with system usability, job performance impact, and amount of e-prescribing. RESULTS Of 395 eligible physicians, 228 (58%) completed the survey. E-prescribers (n = 139) were more likely than non-e-prescribers (n = 89) to perceive that they could identify clinically important drug-drug interactions (83 versus 67%, p = 0.004) but not that they could identify prescriptions from other providers (65 versus 60%, p = 0.49). They also perceived no significant difference in calls about drug coverage problems (76 versus 71% reported getting 10 or fewer such calls per week; p = 0.43). Most e-prescribers reported high satisfaction with their systems, but 17% had stopped using the system and another 46% said they sometimes reverted to handwriting for prescriptions that they could write electronically. The volume of e-prescribing was correlated with perceptions that it enhanced job performance, whereas quitting was associated with perceptions of poor usability. CONCLUSIONS E-prescribing users reported patient safety benefits but they did not perceive the enhanced benefits expected from using standardized medication history or formulary and benefit information. Additional work is needed for these standards to have the desired effects.

Evaluating the technical adequacy of electronic prescribing standards: Results of an expert panel process.

UNLABELLED: To support more informed prescribing decisions, e-prescribing systems need data on patients' medication histories and their drug-specific insurance coverage. We used an expert panel process to evaluate the technical adequacy of two standards for delivering this information, the Medication History function of the NCPDP SCRIPT Standard and the NCPDP Formulary and Benefit Standard. METHODS: We convened a panel representing 14 organizations that had experience with these standards. Experts within each organization submitted narrative responses and ratings assessing the standards in 6 domains, including data quality,completeness, usability, and interoperability. Areas of disagreement were discussed in recorded teleconferences. Narrative was analyzed using a grounded-theory approach. RESULTS: Panelists agreed that the structure of the Medication History Standard was adequate for delivering accurate and complete information but implementation problems made the data difficult to use for decision support.The panel also agreed that the Formulary and Benefit Standard was adequate to deliver formulary status lists, but other parts of the standard were not used consistently and group-level variations in coverage were not represented. A common problem for both standards was the lack of unambiguous drug identifiers; panelists agreed that RxNorm deserves further evaluation as a solution to this problem. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of industry experts found the basic structure of these two standards to be technically adequate, but to enable benefits for patient care, improvements are needed in the standards' implementation.

Variation in electronic prescribing implementation among twelve ambulatory practices.

BACKGROUND: Electronic prescribing has been advocated as an important tool for improving the safety and quality of medication use in ambulatory settings. However, widespread adoption of e-prescribing in ambulatory settings has yet to be realized. The determinants of successful implementation and use in these settings are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe the practice characteristics associated with implementation and use of e-prescribing in ambulatory settings. DESIGN: Multi-method qualitative case study of ambulatory practices before and after e-prescribing implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen physicians and 31 staff members working in 12 practices scheduled for implementation of an e-prescribing program and purposively sampled to ensure a mix of practice size and physician specialty. MEASUREMENTS: Field researchers used observational and interview techniques to collect data on prescription-related clinical workflow, information technology experience, and expectations. RESULTS: Five practices fully implemented e-prescribing, 3 installed but with only some prescribers or staff members using the program, 2 installed and then discontinued use, 2 failed to install. Compared to practice members in other groups, members of successful practices exhibited greater familiarity with the capabilities of health information technologies and had more modest expectations about the benefits likely to accrue from e-prescribing. Members of unsuccessful practices reported limited understanding of e-prescribing capabilities, expected that the program would increase the speed of clinical care and reported difficulties with technical aspects of the implementation and insufficient technical support. CONCLUSIONS: Practice leaders should plan implementation carefully, ensuring that practice members prepare for the effective integration of this technology into clinical workflow.