Literature DB >> 8723614

The accuracy of medication data in an outpatient electronic medical record.

M M Wagner1, W R Hogan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the accuracy of medication records stored in the electronic medical record (EMR) of an outpatient geriatric center. The authors analyzed accuracy from the perspective of a clinician using the data and the perspective of a computer-based medical decision-support system (MDSS).
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
METHODS: The EMR at the geriatric center captures medication data both directly from clinicians and indirectly using encounter forms and data-entry clerks. During a scheduled office visit for medical care, the treating clinician determined whether the medication records for the patient were an accurate representation of the medications that the patient was actually taking. Using the available sources of information (the patient, the patient's vials, any caregivers, and the medical chart), the clinician determined whether the recorded data were correct, whether any data were missing, and the type and cause for each discrepancy found.
RESULTS: At the geriatric center, 83% of medication records represented correctly the compound. dose, and schedule of a current medication; 91% represented correctly the compound. 0.37 current medications were missing per patient. The principal cause of errors was the patient (36.1% of errors), who misreported a medication at a previous visit or changed (stopped, started, or dose-adjusted) a medication between visits. The second most frequent cause of errors was failure to capture changes to medications made by outside clinicians, accounting for 25.9% of errors. Transcription errors were a relatively ucommon cause (8.2% of errors). When the accuracy of records from the center was analyzed from the perspective of a MDSS, 90% were correct for compound identity and 1.38 medications were missing or uncoded per patient. The cause of the additional errors of omission was a free-text "comments" field-which it is assumed would be unreadable by current MDSS applications-that was used by clinicians in 18% of records to record the identity of the medication.
CONCLUSIONS: Medication records in an outpatient EMR may have significant levels of data error. Based on an analysis of correctable causes of error, the authors conclude that the most effective extension to the EMR studied would be to expand its scope to include all clinicians who can potentially change medications. Even with EMR extensions, however, ineradicable error due to patients and data entry will remain. Several implications of ineradicable error for MDSSs are discussed. The provision of a free-text "comments" field increased the accuracy of medication lists for clinician users at the expense of accuracy for a MDSS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8723614      PMCID: PMC116305          DOI: 10.1136/jamia.1996.96310637

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  14 in total

1.  Structured reporting of medical findings: evaluation of a system in gastroenterology.

Authors:  K Kuhn; W Gaus; J G Wechsler; P Janowitz; J Tudyka; W Kratzer; W Swobodnik; H Ditschuneit
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.176

2.  Doctors' unawareness of the drugs their patients are taking: a major cause of overprescribing?

Authors:  D Price; J Cooke; S Singleton; M Feely
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-01-11

3.  Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group.

Authors:  D W Bates; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; S D Small; D Servi; G Laffel; B J Sweitzer; B F Shea; R Hallisey
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-07-05       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Development and validation of an immunization tracking system in a large health maintenance organization.

Authors:  T Payne; S Kanvik; R Seward; D Beeman; A Salazar; Z Miller; V Immanuel; R S Thompson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1993 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Markers of data quality in computer audit: the Manchester Orthopaedic Database.

Authors:  D Ricketts; M Newey; M Patterson; D Hitchin; S Fowler
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Formal error rate in a computerized obstetric medical record.

Authors:  F Jelovsek; W Hammond
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 2.176

7.  Design and implementation of the Indianapolis Network for Patient Care and Research.

Authors:  J M Overhage; W M Tierney; C J McDonald
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  1995-01

8.  The accuracy of the medical record as an index of outpatient drug therapy.

Authors:  R A Monson; C A Bond
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1978-11-10       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  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

10.  Evaluating the accuracy of transcribed clinical data.

Authors:  R Wilton; A J Pennisi
Journal:  Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care       Date:  1993
View more
  40 in total

1.  Clictate: a computer-based documentation tool for guideline-based care.

Authors:  Kevin B Johnson; John Cowan
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.460

Review 2.  Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework.

Authors:  Danielle G T Arts; Nicolette F De Keizer; Gert-Jan Scheffer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  A systematic review of the clinical and economic impact of drug information services on patient outcome.

Authors:  David Hands; Martin Stephens; David Brown
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2002-08

4.  Informatics challenges for the impending patient information explosion.

Authors:  Eta S Berner; Jacqueline Moss
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-07-27       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Analyzing the effect of data quality on the accuracy of clinical decision support systems: a computer simulation approach.

Authors:  Sharique Hasan; Rema Padman
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2006

6.  Arthritis quality indicators for the Veterans Administration: implications for electronic data collection, storage format, quality assessment, and clinical decision support.

Authors:  Carl A Williams; Angelia D Mosley-Williams; J Marc Overhage
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2007-10-11

7.  Effects of blood glucose transcription mismatches on a computer-based intensive insulin therapy protocol.

Authors:  Thomas R Campion; Addison K May; Lemuel R Waitman; Asli Ozdas; Cynthia S Gadd
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Preliminary development of the physician documentation quality instrument.

Authors:  Peter D Stetson; Frances P Morrison; Suzanne Bakken; Stephen B Johnson
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Congruence on medication between patients and physicians involved in patient course.

Authors:  S Foss; J R Schmidt; T Andersen; J J Rasmussen; J Damsgaard; K Schaefer; L K Munck
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 10.  Comparative effectiveness research in the "real" world: lessons learned in a study of treatment-resistant hypertension.

Authors:  Marilyn A Laken; Rosalind Dawson; Otis Engelman; Oscar Lovelace; Charles Way; Brent M Egan
Journal:  J Am Soc Hypertens       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.