Literature DB >> 24179595

E-PRESCRIBING AND PATIENT SAFETY: RESULTS FROM A MIXED METHOD STUDY.

Kate L Lapane1, Molly E Waring, Catherine Dubé, Karen L Schneider.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe ambulatory care clinicians' perspectives on the effect of e-prescribing systems on patient safety outcomes. STUDY
DESIGN: We used a mixed-method study of clinicians and staff in 64 practices using one of six e-prescribing technologies in six U.S. states.
METHODS: We used clinician surveys (web-based and paper) and focus groups to obtain clinicians' perspectives on e-prescribing and patient safety.
RESULTS: Providers highly valued having medications prescribed by other providers on the medication list and the ability to access patients' medication lists remotely. Providers felt that there will always be prescription or medication errors and that the implementation of e-prescribing software changes rather than eliminates prescription or medication errors. New errors related to the dosing or scheduling of a medication, accidentally prescribing the wrong drug, or duplicate prescriptions.
CONCLUSIONS: Lessons from the ambulatory care trenches must be considered as technology moves forward so that the hypothesized patient safety gains will be realized.

Entities:  

Keywords:  electronic prescribing; primary care; technology assessment

Year:  2011        PMID: 24179595      PMCID: PMC3811029     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Pharm Benefits


  20 in total

Review 1.  Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them?

Authors:  S Sofaer
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  The art and science of clinical knowledge: evidence beyond measures and numbers.

Authors:  K Malterud
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-08-04       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  A conceptual framework for evaluating outpatient electronic prescribing systems based on their functional capabilities.

Authors:  Douglas S Bell; Shan Cretin; Richard S Marken; Adam B Landman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003-10-05       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Physicians' experiences using commercial e-prescribing systems.

Authors:  Joy M Grossman; Anneliese Gerland; Marie C Reed; Cheryl Fahlman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Enhancing an ePrescribing system by adding medication histories and formularies: the Regenstrief Medication Hub.

Authors:  Linas Simonaitis; Anne Belsito; J Marc Overhage
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2008-11-06

6.  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

7.  From users involvement to users' needs understanding: a case study.

Authors:  Julie Niès; Sylvia Pelayo
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 4.046

8.  Clinicians' assessments of electronic medication safety alerts in ambulatory care.

Authors:  Saul N Weingart; Brett Simchowitz; Lawrence Shiman; Daniela Brouillard; Adrienne Cyrulik; Roger B Davis; Thomas Isaac; Michael Massagli; Laurinda Morway; Daniel Z Sands; Justin Spencer; Joel S Weissman
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-09-28

9.  Recommendations for comparing electronic prescribing systems: results of an expert consensus process.

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

10.  Analysis of community chain pharmacists' interventions on electronic prescriptions.

Authors:  Terri L Warholak; Michael T Rupp
Journal:  J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb
View more
  8 in total

1.  Retail pharmacy staff perceptions of design strengths and weaknesses of electronic prescribing.

Authors:  Olufunmilola Odukoya; Michelle A Chui
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Blame the Patient, Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care.

Authors:  Gavin Daker-White; Rebecca Hays; Jennifer McSharry; Sally Giles; Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi; Penny Rhodes; Caroline Sanders
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  E-prescribing errors in community pharmacies: exploring consequences and contributing factors.

Authors:  Olufunmilola K Odukoya; Jamie A Stone; Michelle A Chui
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 4.046

4.  Optimized Computerized Order Entry can Reduce Errors in Electronic Prescriptions and Associated Pharmacy Calls to Clarify (CTC).

Authors:  Jaimin Patel; Richard Ogletree; Allison Sutterfield; John C Pace; Laurene Lahr
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Perceptions of e-prescribing efficiencies and inefficiencies in ambulatory care.

Authors:  Kate L Lapane; Rochelle K Rosen; Catherine Dubé
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 4.046

6.  Patients', pharmacists', and prescribers' attitude toward using blockchain and machine learning in a proposed ePrescription system: online survey.

Authors:  Bader Aldughayfiq; Srinivas Sampalli
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2022-01-07

Review 7.  Electronic prescription system requirements: a scoping review.

Authors:  Marjan Vejdani; Mehdi Varmaghani; Marziyhe Meraji; Jamshid Jamali; Elaheh Hooshmand; Ali Vafaee-Najar
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 3.298

8.  Pharmacy Customers' Experiences With Electronic Prescriptions: Cross-Sectional Survey on Nationwide Implementation in Finland.

Authors:  Elina Lämsä; Johanna Timonen; Riitta Ahonen
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 5.428

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.