Thomas G Kannampallil1, Joanna Abraham2, Anna Solotskaya3, Sneha G Philip3, Bruce L Lambert4, Gordon D Schiff5, Adam Wright5, William L Galanter3,6. 1. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical and Health Information Sciences, College of Applied Health Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago. 4. Department of Communication Studies, Center for Communication and Health, Northwestern University. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medication order voiding allows clinicians to indicate that an existing order was placed in error. We explored whether the order voiding function could be used to record and study medication ordering errors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined medication orders from an academic medical center for a 6-year period (2006-2011; n = 5 804 150). We categorized orders based on status (void, not void) and clinician-provided reasons for voiding. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate the association between order voiding and clinician, patient, and order characteristics. We conducted chart reviews on a random sample of voided orders ( n = 198) to investigate the rate of medication ordering errors among voided orders, and the accuracy of clinician-provided reasons for voiding. RESULTS: We found that 0.49% of all orders were voided. Order voiding was associated with clinician type (physician, pharmacist, nurse, student, other) and order type (inpatient, prescription, home medications by history). An estimated 70 ± 10% of voided orders were due to medication ordering errors. Clinician-provided reasons for voiding were reasonably predictive of the actual cause of error for duplicate orders (72%), but not for other reasons. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Medication safety initiatives require availability of error data to create repositories for learning and training. The voiding function is available in several electronic health record systems, so order voiding could provide a low-effort mechanism for self-reporting of medication ordering errors. Additional clinician training could help increase the quality of such reporting.
OBJECTIVE: Medication order voiding allows clinicians to indicate that an existing order was placed in error. We explored whether the order voiding function could be used to record and study medication ordering errors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined medication orders from an academic medical center for a 6-year period (2006-2011; n = 5 804 150). We categorized orders based on status (void, not void) and clinician-provided reasons for voiding. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate the association between order voiding and clinician, patient, and order characteristics. We conducted chart reviews on a random sample of voided orders ( n = 198) to investigate the rate of medication ordering errors among voided orders, and the accuracy of clinician-provided reasons for voiding. RESULTS: We found that 0.49% of all orders were voided. Order voiding was associated with clinician type (physician, pharmacist, nurse, student, other) and order type (inpatient, prescription, home medications by history). An estimated 70 ± 10% of voided orders were due to medication ordering errors. Clinician-provided reasons for voiding were reasonably predictive of the actual cause of error for duplicate orders (72%), but not for other reasons. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Medication safety initiatives require availability of error data to create repositories for learning and training. The voiding function is available in several electronic health record systems, so order voiding could provide a low-effort mechanism for self-reporting of medication ordering errors. Additional clinician training could help increase the quality of such reporting.
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: T A Brennan; L L Leape; N M Laird; L Hebert; A R Localio; A G Lawthers; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William L Galanter; Michelle L Bryson; Suzanne Falck; Rachel Rosenfield; Marci Laragh; Neeha Shrestha; Gordon D Schiff; Bruce L Lambert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David C Radley; Melanie R Wasserman; Lauren Ew Olsho; Sarah J Shoemaker; Mark D Spranca; Bethany Bradshaw Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Johanna I Westbrook; Melissa T Baysari; Ling Li; Rosemary Burke; Katrina L Richardson; Richard O Day Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joanna Abraham; William L Galanter; Daniel Touchette; Yinglin Xia; Katherine J Holzer; Vania Leung; Thomas Kannampallil Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Bruce L Lambert; William Galanter; King Lup Liu; Suzanne Falck; Gordon Schiff; Christine Rash-Foanio; Kelly Schmidt; Neeha Shrestha; Allen J Vaida; Michael J Gaunt Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 7.035