Clinicians were oblivious to incorrect logging of test dates and the associated risks in an online pathology application: a case study.

Amber Appleton, Khaled Sadek, Ian G J Dawson, Simon de Lusignan
{"title":"Clinicians were oblivious to incorrect logging of test dates and the associated risks in an online pathology application: a case study.","authors":"Amber Appleton,&nbsp;Khaled Sadek,&nbsp;Ian G J Dawson,&nbsp;Simon de Lusignan","doi":"10.14236/jhi.v20i4.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>UK primary care physicians receive their laboratory test results electronically. This study reports a computerised physician order entry (CPOE) system error in the pathology test request date that went unnoticed in family practices.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a case study using a causation of risk theoretical framework; comprising interviews with clinicians and the manufacturer to explore the identification of and reaction to the error. The primary outcome was the evolution and recognition of and response to the problem. The secondary outcome was to identify other issues with this system noted by users.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The problem was defined as the incorrect logging of test dates ordered through a CPOE system. The system assigned the test request date to the results, hence a blood test taken after a therapeutic intervention (e.g. an increase in cholesterol-lowering therapy) would appear in the computerised medical record as though it had been tested prior to the increase in treatment. This case demonstrates that: the manufacturers failed to understand family physician workflow; regulation of medical software did not prevent the error; and inherent user trust in technology exacerbated this problem. It took three months before users in two practices independently noted the date errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This case illustrates how users take software on trust and suppliers fail to make provision for risks associated with new software. Resulting errors led to inappropriate prescribing, follow-up, costs and risk. The evaluation of such devices should include utilising risk management processes (RMP) to minimise and manage potential risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":30591,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Primary Care","volume":"20 4","pages":"241-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i4.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: UK primary care physicians receive their laboratory test results electronically. This study reports a computerised physician order entry (CPOE) system error in the pathology test request date that went unnoticed in family practices.

Method: We conducted a case study using a causation of risk theoretical framework; comprising interviews with clinicians and the manufacturer to explore the identification of and reaction to the error. The primary outcome was the evolution and recognition of and response to the problem. The secondary outcome was to identify other issues with this system noted by users.

Results: The problem was defined as the incorrect logging of test dates ordered through a CPOE system. The system assigned the test request date to the results, hence a blood test taken after a therapeutic intervention (e.g. an increase in cholesterol-lowering therapy) would appear in the computerised medical record as though it had been tested prior to the increase in treatment. This case demonstrates that: the manufacturers failed to understand family physician workflow; regulation of medical software did not prevent the error; and inherent user trust in technology exacerbated this problem. It took three months before users in two practices independently noted the date errors.

Conclusion: This case illustrates how users take software on trust and suppliers fail to make provision for risks associated with new software. Resulting errors led to inappropriate prescribing, follow-up, costs and risk. The evaluation of such devices should include utilising risk management processes (RMP) to minimise and manage potential risk.

临床医生忽略了错误的测试日期记录和在线病理学应用程序中的相关风险:一个案例研究。
背景:英国初级保健医生以电子方式接收他们的实验室测试结果。本研究报告了计算机化医嘱输入(CPOE)系统在病理检查请求日期中的错误,这在家庭实践中没有被注意到。方法:运用风险因果关系理论框架进行个案研究;包括与临床医生和制造商的访谈,以探讨错误的识别和反应。主要成果是问题的演变、认识和应对。次要结果是确定用户注意到的该系统的其他问题。结果:该问题被定义为通过CPOE系统订购的测试日期的不正确记录。系统将测试请求日期分配给结果,因此在治疗干预(例如增加降胆固醇治疗)之后进行的血液测试将出现在计算机化的医疗记录中,就好像它在增加治疗之前进行了测试一样。本案例表明:生产企业对家庭医生工作流程理解不足;对医疗软件的监管并没有阻止这种错误;用户对技术固有的信任加剧了这个问题。两个实践中的用户花了三个月的时间才独立注意到日期错误。结论:这个案例说明了用户是如何信任软件的,而供应商却没有做好与新软件相关的风险准备。由此产生的错误导致了不当的处方、随访、成本和风险。此类器械的评估应包括利用风险管理流程(RMP)来最小化和管理潜在风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信