Hajar Mozaffar1, Kathrin M Cresswell2, Robin Williams3, David W Bates4, Aziz Sheikh2. 1. Business School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 2. Centre for Medical informatics, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 4. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hospital electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) systems offer a wide range of patient safety benefits. Like other hospital health information technology interventions, however, they may also introduce new areas of risk. Despite recent advances in identifying these risks, the development and use of ePrescribing systems is still leading to numerous unintended consequences, which may undermine improvement and threaten patient safety. These negative consequences need to be analysed in the design, implementation and use of these systems. We therefore aimed to understand the roots of these reported threats and identify candidate avoidance/mitigation strategies. METHODS: We analysed a longitudinal, qualitative study of the implementation and adoption of ePrescribing systems in six English hospitals, each being conceptualised as a case study. Data included semistructured interviews, observations of implementation meetings and system use, and a collection of relevant documents. We analysed data first within and then across the case studies. RESULTS: Our dataset included 214 interviews, 24 observations and 18 documents. We developed a taxonomy of factors underlying unintended safety threats in: (1) suboptimal system design, including lack of support for complex medication administration regimens, lack of effective integration between different systems, and lack of effective automated decision support tools; (2) inappropriate use of systems-in particular, too much reliance on the system and introduction of workarounds; and (3) suboptimal implementation strategies resulting from partial roll-outs/dual systems and lack of appropriate training. We have identified a number of system and organisational strategies that could potentially avoid or reduce these risks. CONCLUSIONS: Imperfections in the design, implementation and use of ePrescribing systems can give rise to unintended consequences, including safety threats. Hospitals and suppliers need to implement short- and long-term strategies in terms of the technology and organisation to minimise the unintended safety risks. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: Hospital electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) systems offer a wide range of patient safety benefits. Like other hospital health information technology interventions, however, they may also introduce new areas of risk. Despite recent advances in identifying these risks, the development and use of ePrescribing systems is still leading to numerous unintended consequences, which may undermine improvement and threaten patient safety. These negative consequences need to be analysed in the design, implementation and use of these systems. We therefore aimed to understand the roots of these reported threats and identify candidate avoidance/mitigation strategies. METHODS: We analysed a longitudinal, qualitative study of the implementation and adoption of ePrescribing systems in six English hospitals, each being conceptualised as a case study. Data included semistructured interviews, observations of implementation meetings and system use, and a collection of relevant documents. We analysed data first within and then across the case studies. RESULTS: Our dataset included 214 interviews, 24 observations and 18 documents. We developed a taxonomy of factors underlying unintended safety threats in: (1) suboptimal system design, including lack of support for complex medication administration regimens, lack of effective integration between different systems, and lack of effective automated decision support tools; (2) inappropriate use of systems-in particular, too much reliance on the system and introduction of workarounds; and (3) suboptimal implementation strategies resulting from partial roll-outs/dual systems and lack of appropriate training. We have identified a number of system and organisational strategies that could potentially avoid or reduce these risks. CONCLUSIONS: Imperfections in the design, implementation and use of ePrescribing systems can give rise to unintended consequences, including safety threats. Hospitals and suppliers need to implement short- and long-term strategies in terms of the technology and organisation to minimise the unintended safety risks. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision support, computerized; Information technology; Patient safety
Authors: Soomal Mohsin-Shaikh; Dominic Furniss; Ann Blandford; Monsey McLeod; Tiantian Ma; Maedeh Y Beykloo; Bryony Dean Franklin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Åsa Audulv; Elisabeth O C Hall; Åsa Kneck; Thomas Westergren; Liv Fegran; Mona Kyndi Pedersen; Hanne Aagaard; Kristianna Lund Dam; Mette Spliid Ludvigsen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 4.612
Authors: Rikke Mie Rishoej; Henriette Lai Nielsen; Stina Maria Strzelec; Jane Fritsdal Refer; Sanne Allermann Beck; Hanne Marie Gramstrup; Henrik Thybo Christesen; Lene Juel Kjeldsen; Jesper Hallas; Anna Birna Almarsdóttir Journal: Ther Adv Drug Saf Date: 2018-04-23
Authors: Sarah K Pontefract; Jamie J Coleman; Hannah K Vallance; Christine A Hirsch; Sonal Shah; John F Marriott; Sabi Redwood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J Bousquet; S Arnavielhe; A Bedbrook; M Bewick; D Laune; E Mathieu-Dupas; R Murray; G L Onorato; J L Pépin; R Picard; F Portejoie; E Costa; J Fonseca; O Lourenço; M Morais-Almeida; A Todo-Bom; A A Cruz; J da Silva; F S Serpa; M Illario; E Menditto; L Cecchi; R Monti; L Napoli; M T Ventura; G De Feo; D Larenas-Linnemann; M Fuentes Perez; Y R Huerta Villabolos; D Rivero-Yeverino; E Rodriguez-Zagal; F Amat; I Annesi-Maesano; I Bosse; P Demoly; P Devillier; J F Fontaine; J Just; T P Kuna; B Samolinski; A Valiulis; R Emuzyte; V Kvedariene; D Ryan; A Sheikh; P Schmidt-Grendelmeier; L Klimek; O Pfaar; K C Bergmann; R Mösges; T Zuberbier; R E Roller-Wirnsberger; P Tomazic; W J Fokkens; N H Chavannes; S Reitsma; J M Anto; V Cardona; T Dedeu; J Mullol; T Haahtela; J Salimäki; S Toppila-Salmi; E Valovirta; B Gemicioğlu; A Yorgancioglu; N Papadopoulos; E P Prokopakis; S Bosnic-Anticevich; R O'Hehir; J C Ivancevich; H Neffen; E Zernotti; I Kull; E Melen; M Wickman; C Bachert; P Hellings; S Palkonen; C Bindslev-Jensen; E Eller; S Waserman; M Sova; G De Vries; M van Eerd; I Agache; T Casale; M Dykewickz; R N Naclerio; Y Okamoto; D V Wallace Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: A Valiulis; J Bousquet; A Veryga; U Suprun; D Sergeenko; S Cebotari; D Borelli; S Pietikainen; J Banys; I Agache; N E Billo; A Bush; I Chkhaidze; L Dubey; W J Fokkens; J Grigg; T Haahtela; K Julge; O Katilov; N Khaltaev; M Odemyr; S Palkonen; R Savli; A Utkus; V Vilc; T Alasevicius; A Bedbrook; M Bewick; J Chorostowska-Wynimko; E Danila; A Hadjipanayis; R Karseladze; V Kvedariene; E Lesinskas; L Münter; B Samolinski; S Sargsyan; B Sitkauskiene; D Somekh; L Vaideliene; A Valiulis; P W Hellings Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 5.871