BACKGROUND: Although electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) holds promise for preventing prescription errors in the ambulatory setting, research on its effectiveness is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a stand-alone e-prescribing system on the rates and types of ambulatory prescribing errors. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, non-randomized study using pre-post design of 15 providers who adopted e-prescribing with concurrent controls of 15 paper-based providers from September 2005 through June 2007. INTERVENTION: Use of a commercial, stand-alone e-prescribing system with clinical decision support including dosing recommendations and checks for drug-allergy interactions, drug-drug interactions, and duplicate therapies. MAIN MEASURES: Prescribing errors were identified by a standardized prescription and chart review. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 3684 paper-based prescriptions at baseline and 3848 paper-based and electronic prescriptions at one year of follow-up. For e-prescribing adopters, error rates decreased nearly sevenfold, from 42.5 per 100 prescriptions (95% confidence interval (CI), 36.7-49.3) at baseline to 6.6 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 5.1-8.3) one year after adoption (p < 0.001). For non-adopters, error rates remained high at 37.3 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.6-50.2) at baseline and 38.4 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.4-53.9) at one year (p = 0.54). At one year, the error rate for e-prescribing adopters was significantly lower than for non-adopters (p < 0.001). Illegibility errors were very high at baseline and were completely eliminated by e-prescribing (87.6 per 100 prescriptions at baseline for e-prescribing adopters, 0 at one year). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors may occur much more frequently in community-based practices than previously reported. Our preliminary findings suggest that stand-alone e-prescribing with clinical decision support may significantly improve ambulatory medication safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Taconic Health Information Network and Community (THINC), NCT00225563, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225563?term=Kaushal&rank=6 .
BACKGROUND: Although electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) holds promise for preventing prescription errors in the ambulatory setting, research on its effectiveness is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a stand-alone e-prescribing system on the rates and types of ambulatory prescribing errors. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, non-randomized study using pre-post design of 15 providers who adopted e-prescribing with concurrent controls of 15 paper-based providers from September 2005 through June 2007. INTERVENTION: Use of a commercial, stand-alone e-prescribing system with clinical decision support including dosing recommendations and checks for drug-allergy interactions, drug-drug interactions, and duplicate therapies. MAIN MEASURES: Prescribing errors were identified by a standardized prescription and chart review. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 3684 paper-based prescriptions at baseline and 3848 paper-based and electronic prescriptions at one year of follow-up. For e-prescribing adopters, error rates decreased nearly sevenfold, from 42.5 per 100 prescriptions (95% confidence interval (CI), 36.7-49.3) at baseline to 6.6 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 5.1-8.3) one year after adoption (p < 0.001). For non-adopters, error rates remained high at 37.3 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.6-50.2) at baseline and 38.4 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.4-53.9) at one year (p = 0.54). At one year, the error rate for e-prescribing adopters was significantly lower than for non-adopters (p < 0.001). Illegibility errors were very high at baseline and were completely eliminated by e-prescribing (87.6 per 100 prescriptions at baseline for e-prescribing adopters, 0 at one year). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors may occur much more frequently in community-based practices than previously reported. Our preliminary findings suggest that stand-alone e-prescribing with clinical decision support may significantly improve ambulatory medication safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Taconic Health Information Network and Community (THINC), NCT00225563, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225563?term=Kaushal&rank=6 .
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: Jonathan M Teich; Jerome A Osheroff; Eric A Pifer; Dean F Sittig; Robert A Jenders Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: C A Naranjo; U Busto; E M Sellers; P Sandor; I Ruiz; E A Roberts; E Janecek; C Domecq; D J Greenblatt Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1981-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: D W Bates; L L Leape; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; J M Teich; E Burdick; M Hickey; S Kleefield; B Shea; M Vander Vliet; D L Seger Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Douglas S Bell; Richard S Marken; Robin C Meili; C Jason Wang; Mayde Rosen; Robert H Brook Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2004 Jan-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: C Jason Wang; Mihir H Patel; Anthony J Schueth; Melissa Bradley; Shinyi Wu; Jesse C Crosson; Peter A Glassman; Douglas S Bell Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew W Steele; Sheri Eisert; Joel Witter; Pat Lyons; Michael A Jones; Patricia Gabow; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-09-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Erika L Abramson; David W Bates; Chelsea Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Yolanda Barrón; Jill Quaresimo; Andrew C Seger; Elisabeth Burdick; Steven Simon; Rainu Kaushal Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Cindy Parks Thomas; Meelee Kim; Ann McDonald; Peter Kreiner; Stephen J Kelleher; Michael B Blackman; Peter N Kaufman; Grant M Carrow Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Arnaud Belard; Timothy Buchman; Jonathan Forsberg; Benjamin K Potter; Christopher J Dente; Allan Kirk; Eric Elster Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Erika L Abramson; Sameer Malhotra; Karen Fischer; Alison Edwards; Elizabeth R Pfoh; S Nena Osorio; Adam Cheriff; Rainu Kaushal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 5.128