Impact of a computerized physician order entry system on compliance with prescription accuracy requirements
- 108 Downloads
Objective To assess the change in non-compliant items in prescription orders following the implementation of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system named PreDiMed. Setting The department of internal medicine (39 and 38 beds) in two regional hospitals in Canton Vaud, Switzerland. Method The prescription lines in 100 pre- and 100 post-implementation patients’ files were classified according to three modes of administration (medicines for oral or other non-parenteral uses; medicines administered parenterally or via nasogastric tube; pro re nata (PRN), as needed) and analyzed for a number of relevant variables constitutive of medical prescriptions. Main outcome measure The monitored variables depended on the pharmaceutical category and included mainly name of medicine, pharmaceutical form, posology and route of administration, diluting solution, flow rate and identification of prescriber. Results In 2,099 prescription lines, the total number of non-compliant items was 2,265 before CPOE implementation, or 1.079 non-compliant items per line. Two-thirds of these were due to missing information, and the remaining third to incomplete information. In 2,074 prescription lines post-CPOE implementation, the number of non-compliant items had decreased to 221, or 0.107 non-compliant item per line, a dramatic 10-fold decrease (χ2 = 4615; P < 10−6). Limitations of the computerized system were the risk for erroneous items in some non-prefilled fields and ambiguity due to a field with doses shown on commercial products. Conclusion The deployment of PreDiMed in two departments of internal medicine has led to a major improvement in formal aspects of physicians’ prescriptions. Some limitations of the first version of PreDiMed were unveiled and are being corrected.
KeywordsPatient safety Computerized physician order entry Prescription rules Prescribing accuracy Prescribing systems Switzerland
The authors acknowledge the help of Dr. Marques-Vidal with the statistical calculations. They are grateful to Marie-Christine Grouzmann MPharm for critical reading of the manuscript, to Bernard Testa, Emeritus Professor, for his contribution to the English version, and to the hospital managers who gave access to the data.
The authors thank the Research Funds of the Pharmacie des Hôpitaux du Nord Vaudois et de la Broye (PHNVB), which granted financial support for this study.
Conflict of interest statements
- 1.Schmitt E. Le Risque Médicamenteux Nosocomial – Circuit Hospitalier du Médicament et Qualité des Soins. Paris: Editions Masson; 1999. p. 128.Google Scholar
- 3.Di Paolo ER, Saba SG, Gehri M, Krahenbuhl JD, Fanconi S, Pannatier A. The quality of physicians’ prescriptions and nurses’ transcriptions in a general paediatric hospital: a retrospective study [poster]. 12èmes Journées Franco-suisses de Pharmacie Hospitalière, Interlaken, Switzerland, November 2004. http://www.chuv.ch/pha/pha_poster_edpqprescrtjfsph.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2009.
- 8.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human—building a safer health system. Washington: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 1999. p. 159. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068371. Accessed 5 Mar 2009.
- 9.Smith J. Building a safer NHS for patients—improving medication safety. London: Department of Health; 2004. p. 121. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4071443. Accessed 5 Mar 2009.
- 10.Grouzmann MC, Cohen P, Besson P, Clement F, Coppex C, Klopotov A, et al. PrediMed: la prescription médicamenteuse informatisée dans les hôpitaux du canton de Vaud. Swiss Med Inform. 2007;62:24–8.Google Scholar
- 13.Wagner LT, Kenreigh CA. Computerized physician order entry: fallible, not foolproof. Medscape Pharm. 2005;6(2). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516367. Accessed 5 Mar 2009.