A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Electronic Prescribing Incidents Reported by Community Pharmacists.
Journal
Applied clinical informatics
ISSN: 1869-0327
Titre abrégé: Appl Clin Inform
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101537732
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
entrez:
6
6
2019
pubmed:
6
6
2019
medline:
22
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) technology was introduced as an alternative to handwritten prescriptions allowing health care professionals to send prescriptions directly to pharmacies. While the technology has many advantages, such as improving pharmacy workflow and reducing medication errors, some limitations have been realized. The objective of this study was to examine the frequency, type, and contributing factors of e-prescribing quality-related incidents reported to two national error-reporting databases in the United States. This was a retrospective analysis of voluntarily reports of e-prescribing quality-related incidents. A quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted of incidents reported between 2011 and 2015 to the Pharmacy Quality Commitment (PQC) and the Pharmacy Provider e-prescribing Experience Reporting Portal (PEER) databases. For the qualitative analysis, events were combined from the PQC and PEER portal and a 10% random sample of events were analyzed. A total of 589 events were reported to the PEER Portal. Of these, problems with patient directions were the most frequent incident type ( The use of qualitative and quantitative incident data revealed that patient directions and quantity selection were the most common quality issues with e-prescribing. In turn, this may increase the likelihood of patients receiving incorrect drug therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) technology was introduced as an alternative to handwritten prescriptions allowing health care professionals to send prescriptions directly to pharmacies. While the technology has many advantages, such as improving pharmacy workflow and reducing medication errors, some limitations have been realized.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to examine the frequency, type, and contributing factors of e-prescribing quality-related incidents reported to two national error-reporting databases in the United States.
METHODS
This was a retrospective analysis of voluntarily reports of e-prescribing quality-related incidents. A quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted of incidents reported between 2011 and 2015 to the Pharmacy Quality Commitment (PQC) and the Pharmacy Provider e-prescribing Experience Reporting Portal (PEER) databases. For the qualitative analysis, events were combined from the PQC and PEER portal and a 10% random sample of events were analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 589 events were reported to the PEER Portal. Of these, problems with patient directions were the most frequent incident type (
CONCLUSION
The use of qualitative and quantitative incident data revealed that patient directions and quantity selection were the most common quality issues with e-prescribing. In turn, this may increase the likelihood of patients receiving incorrect drug therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31167250
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1691840
pmc: PMC6551211
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
387-394Informations de copyright
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
A.L.H., S.G., J.S., and T.L.W., report grants from Community Pharmacy Foundation, during the conduct of the study.
Références
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014 Jul-Aug;10(4):647-55
pubmed: 24139956
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Nov-Dec;19(6):1059-65
pubmed: 22753809
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2014 Apr 01;11:1g
pubmed: 24808808
Int J Pharm Pract. 2017 Jun;25(3):195-202
pubmed: 27488258
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Sep-Oct;18(5):645-51
pubmed: 21613642
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Nov-Dec;9(6):996-1003
pubmed: 23062769
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Apr;23(e1):e99-e107
pubmed: 26510879
Int J Pharm Compd. 2014 Jan-Feb;18(1):83-6
pubmed: 24881345
Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jun;83(6):427-37
pubmed: 24657055
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2012 Sep-Oct;52(5):e97-e104
pubmed: 23023864
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016 Jan-Feb;12(1):1-19
pubmed: 25847858
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2017 Sep 5;10:26
pubmed: 28878928
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2009 Jan-Feb;49(1):59-64
pubmed: 19196598
Ann Pharmacother. 2006 May;40(5):917-24
pubmed: 16638920
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 May 12;11:29
pubmed: 21569397
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2015 Jan-Feb;55(1):52-8
pubmed: 25539495
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):535-41
pubmed: 24130232
Am J Med. 2016 Mar;129(3):233-4
pubmed: 26584970
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2008 May-Jun;48(3):364-70
pubmed: 18595821