Premium
Effect of an electronic medication administration record application on patient safety
Author(s) -
Vicente Oliveros Noelia,
Gramage Caro Teresa,
Pérez MenendezConde Covadonga,
ÁlvarezDíaz Ana María,
MartínAragón Álvarez Sagrario,
Bermejo Vicedo Teresa,
Delgado Silveira Eva
Publication year - 2017
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.12753
Subject(s) - patient safety , medicine , administration (probate law) , electronic health record , medical emergency , patient record , emergency medicine , family medicine , health care , political science , law , economics , economic growth
Rationale, aims, and objectives To evaluate the effect of an electronic medication administration record (eMAR) application on the rate of medication errors in medication administration recording (ME‐MAR). Methods A before‐and‐after, quasiexperimental study was conducted in a university hospital that implemented the eMAR application in March 2014. Data collection was conducted in April 2012 (pre‐) and June 2014 (post‐) by two pharmacists. The ME‐MARs were analysed by the staff involved to identify their cause. The two pharmacists independently classified the ME‐MARs. In the case of disagreement, a research team examined the ME‐MARs and categorized them by consensus. Three classifications were used: A classic medication error taxonomy and 2 technology‐induced error taxonomies. Results The pharmacists analysed 2835 (pre‐) and 2621 (post‐) medication administration records (MAR), respectively. Overall, the ME‐MAR rate decreased from 48.0% (pre‐) to 36.9% (post‐) ( P < .05). The same types of ME‐MAR were observed in both phases except for “MAR with incomplete information,” which was not observed in the postimplementation phase. In both phases, the most frequent ME‐MAR was “MAR at the wrong time” (MAR before or after medication administration) (31.6% vs 30.2%). The main cause of ME‐MARs in both phases was the failure to follow work procedures. The potential future risk of ME‐MARs significantly decreased after the eMAR implementation ( P < .05). All ME‐MARs were “use errors” because of human factors. New ME‐MARs (1.24%; n = 12) were observed in the postimplementation phase. Conclusion Use of the eMAR application significantly reduces the rate of ME‐MAR and their potential risk. The main cause of ME‐MAR was the failure to follow work procedures .