Abstract
Introduction: In hospitals where computerised physician order entry systems will not be available in the near future, there is a need to explore other ways of reducing medication errors that occur in the drug ordering and delivery system. One of these ways is the use of a computerised medication chart that is updated daily. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency, types and potential clinical significance of drug prescription and administration errors by comparing a traditional medication distribution system (where the transcription of handwritten into printed medication orders takes 3–5 days and the transfer of medication orders was not complete) with the use of a computerised medication chart (which was updated daily by pharmacy assistants on the ward).
Methods: Data were collected during two 3-week periods, from a 32-bed internal medicine unit, before and after the introduction of the computerised medication charts. Prescribing errors were observed by evaluation of all new and changed medication orders and administration errors were detected by using the disguised-observation technique.
Results: For prescribing errors, a total of 611 prescriptions before and 598 prescriptions after the intervention were evaluated. The total prescription error rate (of medication orders with ≥1 error) was found to be significantly higher with the computerised charts when compared with the old system (50.0% [299 of 598] vs 20.3% [124 of 611], odds ratio [OR] 3.80 [95% CI 2.94, 4.90]). This increase was caused by an increase in administrative prescription errors with a low potential clinical significance (mainly omission of the prescriber’s name and the prescription date). The error rate for errors with a potential clinical significance was found to be significantly lower because the prescription error ‘duplicate therapy’ was eliminated (3.4% with the traditional medication chart vs 0% with the computerised chart). For administration errors, a total of 1122 drugs before the intervention and 1175 drugs after the intervention was observed to be administered. The total administration error rate was found to be significantly lower after the intervention (6.1% [72 of 1175] vs 10.5% [118 of 1122], OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.45, 0.84]), as was the error rate with a potential clinical significance. The contribution of handwritten medication orders to the total amount of medication orders was significantly decreased after the intervention (12.8% vs 20.6% [95% CI 4.6, 11.0]) and the administration of a drug ordered by a handwritten medication order resulted in a significantly higher administration rate than with administration of a drug ordered by a printed medication order (before the intervention 20.7% vs 8.0%, OR 2.99 [95% CI 1.96, 4.56], after the intervention 11.4% vs 5.6%, OR 2.18 [95% CI 1.16, 4.11]).
Conclusion: This observational study shows a significant reduction in clinically relevant, administration and (therapeutic) prescription error rates when applying a system using computerised and daily updated medication charts compared with a system using traditional medication charts. Therefore, the use of computerised and daily updated medication charts has the potential to improve the quality of the medication distribution process in hospitals waiting for the implementation of a computerised physician order entry system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Institute of Medicine;. Washington (DC): National Academy Press, 1999
Thornton PD, Simon S, Mathew TH. Towards safer drug prescribing, dispensing and administration in hospitals. J Qual Clin Pract 1999; 19: 41–5
Crane VS. New perspectives on preventing medication errors and adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57: 690–7
Bates DW, Boyle DL, Van der Vliet MB, et al. Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 199–205
Van den Bemt PMLA, Egberts ACG, De Jong-van den Berg LTW, et al. Drug-related problems in hospitalised patients: a review. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 321–33
Kanjanarat P, Winterstein AG, Johns TE, et al. Nature of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals: a literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003; 60: 1750–9
Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, et al. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162(16): 1897–903
Allan EL, Barker KN. Fundamentals of medication error research. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 555–71
van den Bemt PMLA, Egberts ACG. Geneesmiddelgerelateerde problemen gedefinieerd en geclassificeerd. Bijwerkingen en medicatiefouten systematisch ingedeeld. Pharm Weekbl 2002; 137(44): 1540–3
National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. Categorizing medication errors [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nccmerp.org/medErrorCatIndex.html [Accessed 2002 Aug]
Kucukarslam SN, Peters M, Mlynarek M, et al. Pharmacists on rounding teams reduce preventable adverse drug events in hospital general medicine units. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 2014–8
Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, et al. Pharmacists participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit [published erratum appears in JAMA 2000; 283 (10): 1293]. JAMA 1999; 282(3): 267–70
Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163(17): 1409–16
Fontan JE, Maneglier V, Nguyen VX, et al. Medication errors in hospitals: computerized unit dose drug dispensing system versus ward stock distribution system. Pharm World Sci 2003; 25(3): 112–7
Dean B, Schachter M, Vincent C, et al. Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance. Qual Saf Health Care 2002 Dec; 11(4): 340–4
Lesar TS, Briceland SL, Delcourse K, et al. Medication prescribing errors in a teaching hospital. JAMA 1990; 263(17): 2329–34
Tissot E, Cornette C, Limat S, et al. Observational study of potential risk factors of medication administration errors. Pharm World Sci 2003; 25(6): 264–8
Taxis K, Dean B, Barber N. Hospital drug distribution systems in the UK and Germany: a study of medication errors. Pharm World Sci 1999; 21(1): 25–31
Van den Bemt PMLA, Fijn R, Van der Voort PHJ, et al. Frequency and determinants of drug administration errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30(4): 846–50
Flynn EA, Barber KN, Pepper GA, et al. Comparison of methods for detecting medication errors in 36 hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 436–46
Dean B, Barber N. Validity and reliability of observational methods for studying medication administration errors. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2001; 58: 54–9
Barker KN. Data collection techniques: observation. Am J Hosp Pharm 1980; 37: 555–71
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr Evert Jan Bakker for his extensive assistance in the statistical analysis.
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Gijssel-Wiersma, D.G., van den Bemt, P.M. & Walenbergh-van Veen, M.C. Influence of Computerised Medication Charts on Medication Errors in a Hospital. Drug-Safety 28, 1119–1129 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528120-00006
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528120-00006