Impact of computerized provider order entry system on medication prescribing errors in hospital wards: a comparative study.

Q3 Medicine
Medical Journal of Malaysia Pub Date : 2025-03-01
C Y Saw, A K Nadzirah, N S Nagappan, W Joan, M T Lim
{"title":"Impact of computerized provider order entry system on medication prescribing errors in hospital wards: a comparative study.","authors":"C Y Saw, A K Nadzirah, N S Nagappan, W Joan, M T Lim","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medication errors are a major concern in healthcare, threatening patient safety and increasing costs. These errors can occur at various stages, from prescribing to dispensing and administration. Among these, prescribing errors are particularly critical as they occur at the initial step of medication use process and can propagate downstream, potentially leading to adverse events. Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems, with integrated clinical decision support tools offer significant benefits over handwritten prescriptions including enhanced legibility, prescription completeness, standardization, a comprehensive audit trail and real-time alerts and reminders to assist prescribers during the prescribing process. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a CPOE system with clinical decision support features in reducing prescribing errors across the hospital. It compares the rates and error types between electronic and handwritten prescriptions over different time periods following the CPOE implementation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective comparative analysis examines inpatient prescription data collected from the same hospital wards during three distinct periods: 1st January to 31st March 2023 (59,663 handwritten prescriptions), 1st October to 31st December 2023 (43,363 electronic prescriptions at 3 months post-CPOE implementation) and 1st January to 31st March 2024 (44,317 electronic prescriptions at 6 months post-CPOE implementation). The CPOE system was implemented in July 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CPOE system significantly reduced medication prescribing errors (3 months post-CPOE: n=832, 1.92%; 6 months post-CPOE: n=617, 1.39%) compared to handwritten prescriptions (n=3532, 5.92%). The odds of errors occurring 3 months and 6 months post-CPOE implementation were 65% and 75% lower, respectively, than during the handwritten phase [Odds Ratio (OR), 0.35; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.32 - 0.38] and [OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.23 - 0.28]. Potential error sources associated with handwritten prescriptions, such as illegible prescriptions, non-standard abbreviations and incomplete prescriptions, were entirely eliminated with CPOE adoption. Significant differences in error types were observed between handwritten and electronic prescriptions (p<0.001). However, errors related to incorrect dosage, frequency and unit of measurement increased under the CPOE system compared to handwritten prescriptions (p<0.001). A significant reduction in odds occurred with wrong unit of measurement [OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 - 0.72) followed by frequency errors [OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47 - 0.73) from the 3 months to 6 months post-CPOE implementation. Non-significant reductions or increments in odds were observed for other error types including wrong dosage, wrong route, wrong form, wrong strength and wrong or inappropriate drugs between the two 3-month post-CPOE periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The implementation of the CPOE system has significantly minimized the factors contributing to medication prescribing errors associated with handwritten prescriptions. However, the CPOE-related errors can still occur and may persist or change over time. To further improve prescribing safety, it is essential to address the factors contributing to these errors and periodically assess them to minimize the gap. Future studies should explore additional aspects of medication safety such as prescriber knowledge, types of medicines prescribed, long term error patterns and contextual factors including disease complexity across clinical settings, particularly with the integration of advanced clinical decision support tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":39388,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Malaysia","volume":"80 2","pages":"228-234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Malaysia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Medication errors are a major concern in healthcare, threatening patient safety and increasing costs. These errors can occur at various stages, from prescribing to dispensing and administration. Among these, prescribing errors are particularly critical as they occur at the initial step of medication use process and can propagate downstream, potentially leading to adverse events. Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems, with integrated clinical decision support tools offer significant benefits over handwritten prescriptions including enhanced legibility, prescription completeness, standardization, a comprehensive audit trail and real-time alerts and reminders to assist prescribers during the prescribing process. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a CPOE system with clinical decision support features in reducing prescribing errors across the hospital. It compares the rates and error types between electronic and handwritten prescriptions over different time periods following the CPOE implementation.

Materials and methods: This retrospective comparative analysis examines inpatient prescription data collected from the same hospital wards during three distinct periods: 1st January to 31st March 2023 (59,663 handwritten prescriptions), 1st October to 31st December 2023 (43,363 electronic prescriptions at 3 months post-CPOE implementation) and 1st January to 31st March 2024 (44,317 electronic prescriptions at 6 months post-CPOE implementation). The CPOE system was implemented in July 2023.

Results: The CPOE system significantly reduced medication prescribing errors (3 months post-CPOE: n=832, 1.92%; 6 months post-CPOE: n=617, 1.39%) compared to handwritten prescriptions (n=3532, 5.92%). The odds of errors occurring 3 months and 6 months post-CPOE implementation were 65% and 75% lower, respectively, than during the handwritten phase [Odds Ratio (OR), 0.35; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.32 - 0.38] and [OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.23 - 0.28]. Potential error sources associated with handwritten prescriptions, such as illegible prescriptions, non-standard abbreviations and incomplete prescriptions, were entirely eliminated with CPOE adoption. Significant differences in error types were observed between handwritten and electronic prescriptions (p<0.001). However, errors related to incorrect dosage, frequency and unit of measurement increased under the CPOE system compared to handwritten prescriptions (p<0.001). A significant reduction in odds occurred with wrong unit of measurement [OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 - 0.72) followed by frequency errors [OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47 - 0.73) from the 3 months to 6 months post-CPOE implementation. Non-significant reductions or increments in odds were observed for other error types including wrong dosage, wrong route, wrong form, wrong strength and wrong or inappropriate drugs between the two 3-month post-CPOE periods.

Conclusion: The implementation of the CPOE system has significantly minimized the factors contributing to medication prescribing errors associated with handwritten prescriptions. However, the CPOE-related errors can still occur and may persist or change over time. To further improve prescribing safety, it is essential to address the factors contributing to these errors and periodically assess them to minimize the gap. Future studies should explore additional aspects of medication safety such as prescriber knowledge, types of medicines prescribed, long term error patterns and contextual factors including disease complexity across clinical settings, particularly with the integration of advanced clinical decision support tools.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Malaysia
Medical Journal of Malaysia Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: Published since 1890 this journal originated as the Journal of the Straits Medical Association. With the formation of the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Journal became the official organ, supervised by an editorial board. Some of the early Hon. Editors were Mr. H.M. McGladdery (1960 - 1964), Dr. A.A. Sandosham (1965 - 1977), Prof. Paul C.Y. Chen (1977 - 1987). It is a scientific journal, published quarterly and can be found in medical libraries in many parts of the world. The Journal also enjoys the status of being listed in the Index Medicus, the internationally accepted reference index of medical journals. The editorial columns often reflect the Association''s views and attitudes towards medical problems in the country. The MJM aims to be a peer reviewed scientific journal of the highest quality. We want to ensure that whatever data is published is true and any opinion expressed important to medical science. We believe being Malaysian is our unique niche; our priority will be for scientific knowledge about diseases found in Malaysia and for the practice of medicine in Malaysia. The MJM will archive knowledge about the changing pattern of human diseases and our endeavours to overcome them. It will also document how medicine develops as a profession in the nation. We will communicate and co-operate with other scientific journals in Malaysia. We seek articles that are of educational value to doctors. We will consider all unsolicited articles submitted to the journal and will commission distinguished Malaysians to write relevant review articles. We want to help doctors make better decisions and be good at judging the value of scientific data. We want to help doctors write better, to be articulate and precise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信