Analysis of Errors in Manual Versus Electronic Prescriptions in Trauma Patients

Farmacia Hospitalaria (English Edition) Pub Date : 2011-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.farmae.2010.05.002

M. Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés, E. Delgado Silveira, C. Pérez Menéndez-Conde, T. Bermejo Vicedo

{"title":"Analysis of Errors in Manual Versus Electronic Prescriptions in Trauma Patients","authors":"M. Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés, E. Delgado Silveira, C. Pérez Menéndez-Conde, T. Bermejo Vicedo","doi":"10.1016/j.farmae.2010.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To detect, quantify, and compare the medication error produced with manual versus electronically assisted prescription systems.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A descriptive, observational, prospective study in two traumatology hospitalisation units; one with manual prescriptions and the other with electronically assisted prescriptions. Prescription errors were determined.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We analysed 1536 lines of treatment (393 treatment forms) from 164 patients. With manual prescriptions, we detected errors in 19.54% of cases, compared to 9.4% in electronically assisted prescriptions. Omission errors were significantly lower with electronically assisted prescriptions, especially with drugs that act upon the central nervous system.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Prescription error has decreased by 53% since computerising the prescription process. This is particularly useful for omission errors, as prescription is more complete. The decrease in error regarding drugs that act on the central nervous system stands out.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100521,"journal":{"name":"Farmacia Hospitalaria (English Edition)","volume":"35 3","pages":"Pages 135-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.farmae.2010.05.002","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Farmacia Hospitalaria (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173508511000037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objective

To detect, quantify, and compare the medication error produced with manual versus electronically assisted prescription systems.

Methods

A descriptive, observational, prospective study in two traumatology hospitalisation units; one with manual prescriptions and the other with electronically assisted prescriptions. Prescription errors were determined.

Results

We analysed 1536 lines of treatment (393 treatment forms) from 164 patients. With manual prescriptions, we detected errors in 19.54% of cases, compared to 9.4% in electronically assisted prescriptions. Omission errors were significantly lower with electronically assisted prescriptions, especially with drugs that act upon the central nervous system.

Conclusions

Prescription error has decreased by 53% since computerising the prescription process. This is particularly useful for omission errors, as prescription is more complete. The decrease in error regarding drugs that act on the central nervous system stands out.

查看原文本刊更多论文

创伤患者手工处方与电子处方的错误分析

目的检测、量化和比较人工和电子辅助处方系统产生的用药错误。方法对两个创伤住院单位进行描述性、观察性、前瞻性研究;一个是手动处方，另一个是电子辅助处方。确定处方错误。结果对164例患者的1536种治疗方案(393种治疗形式)进行了分析。使用手动处方时，我们发现19.54%的病例错误，而使用电子辅助处方时，我们发现9.4%的病例错误。电子辅助处方的遗漏错误明显降低，特别是对中枢神经系统起作用的药物。结论实施处方电脑化后，处方差错减少了53%。这对遗漏错误特别有用，因为处方更完整。对中枢神经系统起作用的药物的误差率的降低尤为突出。

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

Farmacia Hospitalaria (English Edition)

自引率

0.00%

发文量