Literature DB >> 22477811

Computerized orders with standardized concentrations decrease dispensing errors of continuous infusion medications for pediatrics.

Azizeh K Sowan1, Vinay U Vaidya, Karen L Soeken, Elora Hilmas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The use of continuous infusion medications with individualized concentrations may increase the risk for errors in pediatric patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) for continuous infusions with standardized concentrations on frequency of pharmacy processing errors. In addition, time to process handwritten versus computerized infusion orders was evaluated and user satisfaction with CPOE as compared to handwritten orders was measured.
METHODS: Using a crossover design, 10 pharmacists in the pediatric satellite within a university teaching hospital were given test scenarios of handwritten and CPOE order sheets and asked to process infusion orders using the pharmacy system in order to generate infusion labels. Participants were given three groups of orders: five correct handwritten orders, four handwritten orders written with deliberate errors, and five correct CPOE orders. Label errors were analyzed and time to complete the task was recorded.
RESULTS: Using CPOE orders, participants required less processing time per infusion order (2 min, 5 sec ± 58 sec) compared with time per infusion order in the first handwritten order sheet group (3 min, 7 sec ± 1 min, 20 sec) and the second handwritten order sheet group (3 min, 26 sec ± 1 min, 8 sec), (p<0.01). CPOE eliminated all error types except wrong concentration. With CPOE, 4% of infusions processed contained errors, compared with 26% of the first group of handwritten orders and 45% of the second group of handwritten orders (p<0.03). Pharmacists were more satisfied with CPOE orders when compared with the handwritten method (p=0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: CPOE orders saved pharmacists' time and greatly improved the safety of processing continuous infusions, although not all errors were eliminated. pharmacists were overwhelmingly satisfied with the CPOE orders.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 22477811      PMCID: PMC3018251     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 1551-6776


  29 in total

1.  Prioritizing strategies for preventing medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Fortescue; Rainu Kaushal; Christopher P Landrigan; Kathryn J McKenna; Margaret D Clapp; Frank Federico; Donald A Goldmann; David W Bates
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors.

Authors:  Katja Taxis; Nick Barber
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-03-29

3.  The rule of six: calculating intravenous infusions in a pediatric crisis situation.

Authors:  P A McLeroy
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  1994-10

4.  High rates of adverse drug events in a highly computerized hospital.

Authors:  Jonathan R Nebeker; Jennifer M Hoffman; Charlene R Weir; Charles L Bennett; John F Hurdle
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-05-23

5.  Assessing the clinical impact of pharmacists' interventions.

Authors:  G Brown
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1991-12

6.  Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns.

Authors:  F Lee; J M Teich; C D Spurr; D W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1996 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting.

Authors:  Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Leslie R Harrold; Jeffrey Rothschild; Kristin Debellis; Andrew C Seger; Cynthia Cadoret; Leslie S Fish; Lawrence Garber; Michael Kelleher; David W Bates
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-03-05       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Medication errors and adverse drug events in an intensive care unit: direct observation approach for detection.

Authors:  Brian J Kopp; Brian L Erstad; Michelle E Allen; Andreas A Theodorou; Gail Priestley
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors.

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

10.  Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group.

Authors:  L L Leape; D W Bates; D J Cullen; J Cooper; H J Demonaco; T Gallivan; R Hallisey; J Ives; N Laird; G Laffel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-07-05       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  3 in total

1.  Automated detection of medication administration errors in neonatal intensive care.

Authors:  Qi Li; Eric S Kirkendall; Eric S Hall; Yizhao Ni; Todd Lingren; Megan Kaiser; Nataline Lingren; Haijun Zhai; Imre Solti; Kristin Melton
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  Pharmacist Remote Review of Medication Prescriptions for Appropriateness in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Moran Lazaryan; Ibrahim Abu-Kishk; Noa Rosenfeld-Yehoshua; Sofia Berkovitch; Michal Toledano; Iris Reshef; Tal Kanari; Tomer Ziv-Baran; Matitiahu Berkovitch
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 5.810

3.  Systemic Defenses to Prevent Intravenous Medication Errors in Hospitals: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sini Karoliina Kuitunen; Ilona Niittynen; Marja Airaksinen; Anna-Riia Holmström
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.243

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.