Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration.

BACKGROUND: Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has been developed to verify medications by incorporating bar-code verification technology within an electronic medication-administration system (bar-code eMAR). METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study in an academic medical center that was implementing the bar-code eMAR. We assessed rates of errors in order transcription and medication administration on units before and after implementation of the bar-code eMAR. Errors that involved early or late administration of medications were classified as timing errors and all others as nontiming errors. Two clinicians reviewed the errors to determine their potential to harm patients and classified those that could be harmful as potential adverse drug events. RESULTS: We observed 14,041 medication administrations and reviewed 3082 order transcriptions. Observers noted 776 nontiming errors in medication administration on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR (an 11.5% error rate) versus 495 such errors on units that did use it (a 6.8% error rate)--a 41.4% relative reduction in errors (P<0.001). The rate of potential adverse drug events (other than those associated with timing errors) fell from 3.1% without the use of the bar-code eMAR to 1.6% with its use, representing a 50.8% relative reduction (P<0.001). The rate of timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3% (P<0.001), but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly. Transcription errors occurred at a rate of 6.1% on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR but were completely eliminated on units that did use it. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and in medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. Our data show that the bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243373.)

Administrative compensation of medical injuries: a hardy perennial blooms again.

Periods in which the costs of personal injury litigation and liability insurance have risen dramatically have often provoked calls for reform of the tort system, and medical malpractice is no exception. One proposal for fundamental reform made during several of these volatile periods has been to relocate personal injury disputes from the tort system to an alternative, administrative forum. In the medical injury realm, a leading incarnation of such proposals in recent years has been the idea of establishing specialized administrative "health courts." Despite considerable stakeholder and policy-maker interest, administrative compensation proposals have tended to struggle for broad political acceptance. In this article, we consider the historical experience of administrative medical injury compensation proposals, particularly in light of comparative examples in the context of workplace injuries, automobile injuries, and vaccine injuries. We conclude by examining conditions that may facilitate or impede progress toward establishing demonstration projects of health courts.

Beyond negligence: avoidability and medical injury compensation.

Disenchantment with the tort system and negligence standard in the United States is fueling interest in alternate compensation systems for medical injury. One possibility is experimentation with administrative "health courts," through which specialized adjudicators would utilize neutral experts to render compensability determinations. Compensation would be based not on negligence, but rather on a broader avoidable medical injury (avoidability) standard. Although considerable interest in health courts exists, stakeholders frequently express uncertainty about the meaning and operation of an avoidability standard. Three nations-Sweden, Denmark, and New Zealand-have long operated administrative schemes. We conducted interviews with administrators and stakeholders in these systems. Our goal was to garner lessons on how to operate a health court, and specifically, how to develop and apply alternate compensation criteria such as avoidability. This article reports our findings on the origins and operations of the systems, the evolution of their compensation criteria, and how these criteria are actually applied. We found that all three systems had their primary genesis in ensuring compensation for the injured, as opposed to sanctioning providers. All have abandoned the negligence standard. The Nordic systems use an avoidability standard, principally defined as injury that would not occur in the hands of the best practitioner. Their experience demonstrates that this definition is feasible to apply. New Zealand's recent move to a no-fault system sheds light on the benefits and drawbacks of a variety of compensation standards. Key lessons for successfully applying an alternate standard, such as avoidability, include a strict adherence to national precedent, the use of neutral and experienced experts, and a block on routine transfer of information from compensation investigations to disciplinary authorities. Importantly, all three nations are harnessing their systems' power to improve patient safety, and the avoidability standard appears to be well suited for this task.

"Health courts" and accountability for patient safety.

Proposals that medical malpractice claims be removed from the tort system and processed in an alternative system, known as administrative compensation or "health courts," attract considerable policy interest during malpractice "crises," including the current one. This article describes current proposals for the design of a health court system and the system's advantages for improving patient safety. Among these advantages are the cultivation of a culture of transparency regarding medical errors and the creation of mechanisms to gather and analyze data on medical injuries. The article discusses the experiences of foreign countries with administrative compensation systems for medical injury, including their use of claims data for research on patient safety; choices regarding the compensation system's relationship to physician disciplinary processes; and the proposed system's possible limitations.