OBJECTIVES: Quantitative evaluation of safety after the implementation of a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system, stratification of residual risks to drive future developments. DESIGN: Comparative risk analysis of the drug prescription process before and after the implementation of CPOE system, according to the Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method. MEASUREMENTS: The failure modes were defined and their criticality indices calculated on the basis of the likelihood of occurrence, potential severity for patients, and detection probability. Criticality indices of handwritten and electronic prescriptions were compared, the acceptability of residual risks was discussed. Further developments were proposed and their potential impact on the safety was estimated. RESULTS: The sum of criticality indices of 27 identified failure modes was 3813 for the handwritten prescription, 2930 (-23%) for CPOE system, and 1658 (-57%) with 14 enhancements. The major safety improvements were observed for errors due to ambiguous, incomplete or illegible orders (-245 points), wrong dose determination (-217) and interactions (-196). Implementation of targeted pop-ups to remind treatment adaptation (-189), vital signs (-140), and automatic edition of documents needed for the dispensation (-126) were the most promising proposed improvements. CONCLUSION: The impact of a CPOE system on patient safety strongly depends on the implemented functions and their ergonomics. The use of risk analysis helps to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between a system and patient safety and to build a strategy for continuous quality improvement, by selecting the most appropriate improvements to the system.
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative evaluation of safety after the implementation of a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system, stratification of residual risks to drive future developments. DESIGN: Comparative risk analysis of the drug prescription process before and after the implementation of CPOE system, according to the Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method. MEASUREMENTS: The failure modes were defined and their criticality indices calculated on the basis of the likelihood of occurrence, potential severity for patients, and detection probability. Criticality indices of handwritten and electronic prescriptions were compared, the acceptability of residual risks was discussed. Further developments were proposed and their potential impact on the safety was estimated. RESULTS: The sum of criticality indices of 27 identified failure modes was 3813 for the handwritten prescription, 2930 (-23%) for CPOE system, and 1658 (-57%) with 14 enhancements. The major safety improvements were observed for errors due to ambiguous, incomplete or illegible orders (-245 points), wrong dose determination (-217) and interactions (-196). Implementation of targeted pop-ups to remind treatment adaptation (-189), vital signs (-140), and automatic edition of documents needed for the dispensation (-126) were the most promising proposed improvements. CONCLUSION: The impact of a CPOE system on patient safety strongly depends on the implemented functions and their ergonomics. The use of risk analysis helps to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between a system and patient safety and to build a strategy for continuous quality improvement, by selecting the most appropriate improvements to the system.
Authors: Tejal K Gandhi; Saul N Weingart; Andrew C Seger; Joshua Borus; Elisabeth Burdick; Eric G Poon; Lucian L Leape; David W Bates Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Pascal Bonnabry; Laurence Cingria; Monique Ackermann; Farshid Sadeghipour; Lucienne Bigler; Nicolas Mach Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-11-07 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: George R Kim; Allen R Chen; Robert J Arceci; Sandra H Mitchell; K Michelle Kokoszka; Denise Daniel; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2006-05
Authors: Yong Y Han; Joseph A Carcillo; Shekhar T Venkataraman; Robert S B Clark; R Scott Watson; Trung C Nguyen; Hülya Bayir; Richard A Orr Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Chunliu Zhan; Rodney W Hicks; Christopher M Blanchette; Margaret A Keyes; Diane D Cousins Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Kai Zheng; Hilary M Haftel; Ronald B Hirschl; Michael O'Reilly; David A Hanauer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lorenzo Moja; Koren H Kwag; Theodore Lytras; Lorenzo Bertizzolo; Linn Brandt; Valentina Pecoraro; Giulio Rigon; Alberto Vaona; Francesca Ruggiero; Massimo Mangia; Alfonso Iorio; Ilkka Kunnamo; Stefanos Bonovas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Willem van der Veen; Han J J de Gier; Tjerk van der Schaaf; Katja Taxis; Patricia M L A van den Bemt Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2012-11-28
Authors: L Gschwind; V Rollason; C Lovis; F Boehlen; P Bonnabry; P Dayer; J A Desmeules Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-08-19 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Hanna M Seidling; Marion Stützle; Torsten Hoppe-Tichy; Benoît Allenet; Pierrick Bedouch; Pascal Bonnabry; Jamie J Coleman; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos; Christian Lovis; Maria Jose Rei; Dominic Störzinger; Lenka A Taylor; Sarah K Pontefract; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Heleen van der Sijs; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2016-03-10
Authors: Ann Schoofs Hundt; Jean A Adams; J Andrew Schmid; Linda M Musser; James M Walker; Tosha B Wetterneck; Stephen V Douglas; Bonnie L Paris; Pascale Carayon Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Safiya Richardson; Rebecca Mishuris; Alexander O'Connell; David Feldstein; Rachel Hess; Paul Smith; Lauren McCullagh; Thomas McGinn; Devin Mann Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.046