OBJECTIVE: Electronic prescribing is considered a basic measure for the prevention and reduction of medications errors. The goal of this survey was to assess the incidence of errors occurring with electronic versus standard prescription. METHOD: A prospective, sequential, open-label study to assess errors with electronic prescribing as compared to traditional manual prescribing in two public hospitals in Balearic Islands. Errors regarding medication, diet and/or nursing orders were assesses along four process stages: medical prescription, pharmacy transcription/validation, nursing transcription, and dispensation. RESULTS: With manual prescription 1,576 errors/18,539 therapy orders (8.50%) were identified, whereas with electronic prescription 827 errors/18,885 therapy orders (4.38%) were detected, which represents a relative risk reduction by 48% and an absolute risk reduction by 4.12% (p < 0.0001). Pharmacy transcription/validation errors decreased (1.73 vs. 0.13%, p < 0.0001), as did nursing transcription errors (2.54 vs. 0.81%, p < 0.0001) and dispensation errors (2.13 vs. 0.96%, p < 0.0001); however, the number of prescription errors increased (2.10 vs. 2.40%, p = 0.0401). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic prescription is a powerful tool, and one that in this work was shown to decrease medication-, diet-, and nursing care-related errors in a highly significant way; however, it should be developed and maintained in order to achieve safety and effectiveness as required by drug usage.
OBJECTIVE: Electronic prescribing is considered a basic measure for the prevention and reduction of medications errors. The goal of this survey was to assess the incidence of errors occurring with electronic versus standard prescription. METHOD: A prospective, sequential, open-label study to assess errors with electronic prescribing as compared to traditional manual prescribing in two public hospitals in Balearic Islands. Errors regarding medication, diet and/or nursing orders were assesses along four process stages: medical prescription, pharmacy transcription/validation, nursing transcription, and dispensation. RESULTS: With manual prescription 1,576 errors/18,539 therapy orders (8.50%) were identified, whereas with electronic prescription 827 errors/18,885 therapy orders (4.38%) were detected, which represents a relative risk reduction by 48% and an absolute risk reduction by 4.12% (p < 0.0001). Pharmacy transcription/validation errors decreased (1.73 vs. 0.13%, p < 0.0001), as did nursing transcription errors (2.54 vs. 0.81%, p < 0.0001) and dispensation errors (2.13 vs. 0.96%, p < 0.0001); however, the number of prescription errors increased (2.10 vs. 2.40%, p = 0.0401). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic prescription is a powerful tool, and one that in this work was shown to decrease medication-, diet-, and nursing care-related errors in a highly significant way; however, it should be developed and maintained in order to achieve safety and effectiveness as required by drug usage.