BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers previously using older electronic health records (EHRs) with electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) are transitioning to newer systems to be eligible for federal meaningful use incentives. Little is known about the safety effects of transitioning between systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of transitioning between EHR systems on rates and types of prescribing errors, as well as provider perceptions about the effect on prescribing safety. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, case study of 17 physicians at an academic-affiliated ambulatory clinic from February 2008 through August 2009. All physicians transitioned from an older EHR with minimal clinical decision support (CDS) for e-prescribing to a newer EHR with more robust CDS. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Prescribing errors were identified by standardized prescription and chart review. A novel survey instrument was administered to evaluate provider perceptions about prescribing safety. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 1298 prescriptions at baseline, 1331 prescriptions 12 weeks post-implementation, and 1303 prescriptions one year post-implementation. Overall prescribing error rates were highest at baseline (35.7 per 100 prescriptions, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.2-54.8) and lowest one year post-implementation (12.2 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 8.6-17.4) (p < 0.001). Improvement in prescribing safety was mainly a result of reducing inappropriate abbreviation errors. However, rates for non-abbreviation prescribing errors were significantly higher at 12 weeks post-implementation than at baseline (17.7 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 9.5-33.0 versus 8.5 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 4.6-15.9) (p <0.001) and no different at baseline than one year (10.2 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 6.2-18.6) (p = 0.337). Survey results complemented quantitative findings. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this case study suggest that transitioning between systems, even to those with more robust CDS, may pose important safety threats. Recognizing the challenges associated with transitions and refining CDS within systems may help maximize safety benefits.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers previously using older electronic health records (EHRs) with electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) are transitioning to newer systems to be eligible for federal meaningful use incentives. Little is known about the safety effects of transitioning between systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of transitioning between EHR systems on rates and types of prescribing errors, as well as provider perceptions about the effect on prescribing safety. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, case study of 17 physicians at an academic-affiliated ambulatory clinic from February 2008 through August 2009. All physicians transitioned from an older EHR with minimal clinical decision support (CDS) for e-prescribing to a newer EHR with more robust CDS. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Prescribing errors were identified by standardized prescription and chart review. A novel survey instrument was administered to evaluate provider perceptions about prescribing safety. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 1298 prescriptions at baseline, 1331 prescriptions 12 weeks post-implementation, and 1303 prescriptions one year post-implementation. Overall prescribing error rates were highest at baseline (35.7 per 100 prescriptions, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.2-54.8) and lowest one year post-implementation (12.2 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 8.6-17.4) (p < 0.001). Improvement in prescribing safety was mainly a result of reducing inappropriate abbreviation errors. However, rates for non-abbreviation prescribing errors were significantly higher at 12 weeks post-implementation than at baseline (17.7 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 9.5-33.0 versus 8.5 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 4.6-15.9) (p <0.001) and no different at baseline than one year (10.2 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 6.2-18.6) (p = 0.337). Survey results complemented quantitative findings. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this case study suggest that transitioning between systems, even to those with more robust CDS, may pose important safety threats. Recognizing the challenges associated with transitions and refining CDS within systems may help maximize safety benefits.
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: 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; J M Teich; J Lee; D Seger; G J Kuperman; N Ma'Luf; D Boyle; L Leape Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1999 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
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: 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: Stephanie O Zandieh; Erika L Abramson; Elizabeth R Pfoh; Kay Yoon-Flannery; Alison Edwards; Rainu Kaushal Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-08-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ralph Gonzales; Tammy Anderer; Charles E McCulloch; Judith H Maselli; Frederick J Bloom; Thomas R Graf; Melissa Stahl; Michelle Yefko; Julie Molecavage; Joshua P Metlay Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David A Hanauer; Greta L Branford; Grant Greenberg; Sharon Kileny; Mick P Couper; Kai Zheng; Sung W Choi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497