Premium
Medication errors: electronic vs. paper‐based prescribing. Experience at a tertiary care university hospital
Author(s) -
HinojosaAmaya José Miguel,
RodríguezGarcía Francisco Gonzalo,
YeverinoCastro Sara Gabriela,
SánchezCárdenas Mónica,
VillarrealAlarcón Miguel Ángel,
GalarzaDelgado Dionicio Ángel
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.12535
Subject(s) - pharmacovigilance , medicine , medical prescription , observational study , electronic prescribing , patient safety , electronic medical record , medical record , adverse effect , emergency medicine , electronic health record , medication error , tertiary care , under reporting , pharmacoepidemiology , electronic data , health care , statistics , database , nursing , mathematics , economics , economic growth , computer science
Purpose It has been estimated that medication errors (ME) are responsible for 7000 deaths each year. Some studies show that electronic prescribing systems have achieved health benefits and patient safety, resulting in a saving of resources. Other studies suggest that they may increase adverse events. Objective The objective of this study was to compare medication errors between electronic and paper‐based prescription detected during pharmacovigilance. Methods This was an observational, cross‐sectional comparative study of 600 randomized medical records that were systematically reviewed by a pharmacovigilance team, with a deliberate search for ME. Each error was classified according to its severity, National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and Prevention taxonomy and high‐risk medications. The number of errors was calculated per 100 prescribed medications, number of errors per record and number of records with an error as a quality indicator. Results A total of 229 ME were found with a mean per record of 0.38 (SD = 0.7), of which 155 corresponded to the paper‐based method (1.04, SD = 1.67) and 74 to the electronic‐based method (0.29, SD = 0.57) P = <0.001. The use of the electronic method was associated with an OR of 0.59 (95% CI 0.41–0.85) for the recording of at least one ME ( P = 0.005), but to a greater severity of ME (<0.001). Conclusion The use of the electronic system was associated with a reduction in ME, compared with the paper‐based method. Despite this, it was associated with more severe ME.