BACKGROUND: In 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Administration issued regulations allowing electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS), a practice previously prohibited. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a survey of the experience of prescribers in the nation's first study of EPCS implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prescribers were surveyed in a community setting before and after implementation of EPCS, to assess adoption, attitudes, and challenges. RESULTS: Of the 102 prescribers enabled to use EPCS and who responded to surveys before and after implementation, 70 had sent at least one controlled substance prescription electronically. Most users reported that EPCS was significantly less burdensome than expected. Over half reported that EPCS was easy to use and improved work flow, accuracy of prescriptions (69.5%), monitoring of medications (59.3%), and coordination with pharmacists, though high prior expectations for improved efficiency were not met. EPCS users reported a significant decrease in the perceived frequency of medication errors and drug diversion, compared with controls. Barriers to use of EPCS included limited pharmacy participation and instances of unreliability of the technology. DISCUSSION: Interest in adoption of EPCS is considerable among providers, pharmacies, and vendors. The results suggest that while most EPCS security features may be more acceptable to providers than expected, barriers such as the limited participation by pharmacies may also partly explain slow adoption rates for EPCS nationally. CONCLUSIONS: EPCS was a better experience for many providers than they had expected, but related improvements in practice efficiency and quality of care will depend upon implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND: In 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Administration issued regulations allowing electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS), a practice previously prohibited. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a survey of the experience of prescribers in the nation's first study of EPCS implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prescribers were surveyed in a community setting before and after implementation of EPCS, to assess adoption, attitudes, and challenges. RESULTS: Of the 102 prescribers enabled to use EPCS and who responded to surveys before and after implementation, 70 had sent at least one controlled substance prescription electronically. Most users reported that EPCS was significantly less burdensome than expected. Over half reported that EPCS was easy to use and improved work flow, accuracy of prescriptions (69.5%), monitoring of medications (59.3%), and coordination with pharmacists, though high prior expectations for improved efficiency were not met. EPCS users reported a significant decrease in the perceived frequency of medication errors and drug diversion, compared with controls. Barriers to use of EPCS included limited pharmacy participation and instances of unreliability of the technology. DISCUSSION: Interest in adoption of EPCS is considerable among providers, pharmacies, and vendors. The results suggest that while most EPCS security features may be more acceptable to providers than expected, barriers such as the limited participation by pharmacies may also partly explain slow adoption rates for EPCS nationally. CONCLUSIONS: EPCS was a better experience for many providers than they had expected, but related improvements in practice efficiency and quality of care will depend upon implementation strategies.
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: John Halamka; Meg Aranow; Carl Ascenzo; David W Bates; Kate Berry; Greg Debor; Jessica Fefferman; John Glaser; Jerilyn Heinold; John Stanley; Diane L Stone; Thomas E Sullivan; Micky Tripathi; Bruce Wilkinson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-02-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew Rosenblum; Mark Parrino; Sidney H Schnoll; Chunki Fong; Carleen Maxwell; Charles M Cleland; Stephen Magura; J David Haddox Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Allen Huang; Yuko Kawasumi; Gillian Bartlett; Roland Grad; André Jacques; Martin Dawes; Michal Abrahamowicz; Robert Perreault; Laurel Taylor; Nancy Winslade; Lise Poissant; Alain Pinsonneault Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael A Fischer; Margaret R Stedman; Joyce Lii; Christine Vogeli; William H Shrank; M Alan Brookhart; Joel S Weissman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary Jo Larson; Cheryl Browne; Ruslan V Nikitin; Nikki R Wooten; Sarah Ball; Rachel Sayko Adams; Kelly Barth Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Nancy Carnide; Emma Irvin; Dwayne Van Eerd; Claire Munhall; Jaemin Kim; Cathy Meng Fei Li; Abdul Hamad; Quenby Mahood; Sara MacDonald Journal: Can J Pain Date: 2018-07-31
Authors: Taylor L Watterson; Jamie A Stone; Aaron Gilson; Roger Brown; Ka Z Xiong; Anthony Schiefelbein; Edmond Ramly; Peter Kleinschmidt; Michael Semanik; Lauren Craddock; Samantha I Pitts; Taylor Woodroof; Michelle A Chui Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.796