Disease Management and Health Outcomes

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 297–304 | Cite as

Electronic Point-of-Care Prescribing

Writing the ‘Script’
Current Opinion

Abstract

Moving from a paper-based prescribing system to a system in which physicians prescribe directly into computers represents an important but challenging transition. This article addresses 5 issues related to computerised prescribing.

The first issue is that paper-based prescribing systems do not work. Rates of errors and inappropriate prescriptions are unacceptably high. Using computers to structure and check prescriptions holds great promise for ameliorating this situation.

The second issue is that computerised prescribing represents a battleground in a ‘contest’ over control and content of medical practice. Eight key stakeholders with conflicting interests are vying to shape electronic prescribing. Patient, prescriber and pharmacist interest converge around key design characteristics.

The third issue is that the success of electronic prescription-writing hinges on integration with clinical data and processes. While computer prescribing programs are proliferating, few have the requisite linkages required to fundamentally transform the prescribing process. Linkages with laboratory data, diagnoses and scheduling are especially critical.

The fourth issue is that feedback to prescribers is vital. Computers enable advanced learning from drug-experience outcomes and should be deployed to facilitate this capability.

Finally, progress depends on breakthroughs in 10 current ‘tension’ areas. Trade-offs in these tension areas can be conceptually illustrated by receiver-operating characteristic curves which show new operating characteristics required for genuine progress.

While the path to electronic prescribing will be challenging, the rewards will be great. To ensure optimal results, it is critical that health professionals play a leading role in developing, designing and implementing such systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995; 274: 29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates DW, Leape LL, Petrycki S. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in hospitalized adults [see comments]. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 289–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gandhi TK, Burstin HR, Cook EF, et al. Drug complications in outpatients. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 149–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson MS. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schiff GD, Rucker TD. Computerized prescribing: building the electronic infrastructure for better medication usage. JAMA 1998; 279: 1024–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bates DW, Pappius E, Kuperman GJ, et al. Using information systems to measure and improve quality. Int J Med Infect 1999; 53: 115–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6: 313–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, et al. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 232–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morris AH. Developing and implementing computerized protocols for standardization of clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 373–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lesar TS, Lomaestro BM, Pohl H. Medication-prescribing errors in a teaching hospital. A 9-year experience. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1569–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Folli HL, Poole RL, Benitz WE, et al. Medication error prevention by clinical pharmacists in two children’s hospitals. Pediatrics 1987; 79: 718–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siegel D, Lopez J. Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States: do the JNC V recommendations affect prescribing? Fifth Joint National Commission on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 1997; 278: 1745–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beaulieu MD, Dufresne L, LeBlanc D. Treating hypertension. Are the right drugs given to the right patients? Can Fam Physician 1998; 44: 294–8, 301-2, 294-2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moser M. Why are physicians not prescribing diuretics more frequently in the management of hypertension? JAMA 1998; 279: 1813–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steven ID, Malpass A, Moller J, et al. Towards safer drug use in general practice. J Qual Clin Pract 1999; 19: 47–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen CS, Seidel K, Armitage JO, et al. Safeguarding the administration of high-dose chemotherapy: a national practice survey by the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 1997; 3: 331–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambert BL. Predicting look-alike and sound-alike medication errors. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 1161–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldmann DA, Weinstein RA, Wenzel RP, et al. Strategies to prevent and control the emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. A challenge to hospital leadership. JAMA 1996; 275: 234–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta K, Hooton TM, Wobbe CL, et al. The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens causing acute uncomplicated cystitis in young women. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1999; 11: 305–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zernikow B, Michel E, Fleischhack G, et al. Accidental iatrogenic intoxications by cytotoxic drugs: error analysis and practical preventive strategies. Drug Saf 1999; 21: 57–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smetzer JLCMR. Lessons from the Denver medication error/criminal negligence case: look beyond blaming individuals. Hosp Pharm 1998; 33: 640–57Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen JS. Ways to minimize adverse drug reactions. Individualized doses and common sense are key. Postgrad Med 1999; 106: 163–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bailey DS, Bondar A, Furness LM. Pharmacogenomics — it’s not just pharmacogenetics. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1998; 9: 595–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grady, D. Too much of a good thing? Doctor challenges drug manual. New York: New York Times, 1999: D1–D2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, et al. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995; 274: 700–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walton R, Dovey S, Harvey E, et al. Computer support for determining drug dose: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 1999; 318: 984–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Novek J. Clinical or industrial pharmacy? Case studies of hospital pharmacy automation in Canada and France. Int J Health Serv 1998; 28: 445–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kleinke JD. Release 0.0: clinical information technology in the real world. Health Aff (Millwood) 1998; 17: 23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murray MD, Loos B, Tu W, et al. Work patterns of ambulatory care pharmacists with access to electronic guideline-based treatment suggestions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999; 56: 225–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    From Compliance to Concordance Achieving Shared Goals in Medicine Taking. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1999: 97Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schiff GD. Computerized prescribing: steps to improve therapy [editorial]. Hosp Pract 1999; 34: 11–8Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Teich JM, Wrinn MM. Clinical decision support systems come of age. MD Comput 2000; 17: 43–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bates DW, Boyle DL, Rittenberg E, et al. What proportion of common diagnostic tests appear redundant? Am J Med 1998; 104: 361–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chin T. Drug connections: cheaper and better devices to send prescriptions electronically — and avoid reliance on physicians; handwriting — are coming on the market. But they have a long way to go to replace the prescription pad. AMA News 2000 Jan 31: 1–5Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ginger R. Altgeld’s America. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1958Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nutting PA, Beasley JW, Werner JJ. Practice-based research networks answer primary care questions. JAMA 1999; 281: 686–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Knottnerus JA, Dinant GJ. Medicine based evidence, a prerequisite for evidence based medicine [editorial]. BMJ 1997; 315: 1109–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Felkey BG, Barker KN. The power of information in an integrated health care system. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1995; 52: 537–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lawrenson R, Williams T, Farmer R. Clinical information for research; the use of general practice databases. J Public Health Med 1999; 21: 299–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ollman B. The meaning of dialectics. Monthly Rev 1986; 38: 44–55Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Managing change. JAMA 2000; 7: 116–24Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lusted LB. The clearing ‘haze’: a view from my window. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 76–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Cook County HospitalRush Medical CollegeChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations