The Association of the First Surge of the COVID-19 Pandemic with the High- and Low-Value Outpatient Care Delivered to Adults in the USA.

BACKGROUND: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic entirely altered healthcare delivery. Whether this also altered the receipt of high- and low-value care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test the association between the April through June 2020 surge of COVID-19 and various high- and low-value care measures to determine how the delivery of care changed. DESIGN: Difference in differences analysis, examining the difference in quality measures between the April through June 2020 surge quarter and the January through March 2020 quarter with the same 2 quarters' difference the year prior. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in the MarketScan® Commercial Database and Medicare Supplemental Database. MAIN MEASURES: Fifteen low-value and 16 high-value quality measures aggregated into 8 clinical quality composites (4 of these low-value). KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 9,352,569 adults. Mean age was 44 years (SD, 15.03), 52% were female, and 75% were employed. Receipt of nearly every type of low-value care decreased during the surge. For example, low-value cancer screening decreased 0.86% (95% CI, -1.03 to -0.69). Use of opioid medications for back and neck pain (DiD +0.94 [95% CI, +0.82 to +1.07]) and use of opioid medications for headache (DiD +0.38 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69]) were the only two measures to increase. Nearly all high-value care measures also decreased. For example, high-value diabetes care decreased 9.75% (95% CI, -10.79 to -8.71). CONCLUSIONS: The first COVID-19 surge was associated with receipt of less low-value care and substantially less high-value care for most measures, with the notable exception of increases in low-value opioid use.

Hospital readmissions: physician awareness and communication practices.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring early hospital readmission may be readmitted to different physicians, potentially without the knowledge of the prior caregivers. This lost opportunity to share information about readmitted patients may be detrimental to quality of care and resident education. OBJECTIVE: To measure physician awareness of and communication about readmissions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 432 patients discharged from the general medicine services and readmitted within 14 days. MEASUREMENTS: We identified patients discharged from the general medicine services and readmitted within 14 days, excluding patients readmitted to the same physician(s) and planned readmissions. We surveyed discharging and readmitting physicians 48 h after the time of readmission. RESULTS: Discharging physician teams were aware of 48.5% (95% CI 41.5%-55.5%) of patient readmissions. Communication between teams occurred on 43.7% (95% CI 37.1%-50.3%). Higher medical complexity was associated with an increased likelihood of physician communication (adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.19). When communication occurred, readmitting physicians received information about the discharging team's overall assessment (61.9%, 95% CI 51.9%-71.9%), psychosocial issues (52.6%, 95% CI 42.4%-62.8%), pending tests (34.0%, 95% CI 24.2%-43.8%), and discharge medications (30.9%, 95% CI 21.5%-40.3%). When communication did not occur, most physicians (60.8%, 95% CI 56.7%-64.9%) responded it would have been desirable to communicate. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient readmissions and often do not communicate when readmissions occur. This communication is often desired and frequently results in the exchange of important patient information. Further work is needed to design systems to address this potential discontinuity of care.

Physicians' use of key functions in electronic health records from 2005 to 2007: a statewide survey.

OBJECTIVE Electronic health records (EHRs) have potential to improve quality and safety, but many physicians do not use these systems to full capacity. The objective of this study was to determine whether this usage gap is narrowing over time. DESIGN Follow-up mail survey of 1,144 physicians in Massachusetts who completed a 2005 survey. MEASUREMENTS Adoption of EHRs and availability and use of 10 EHR functions. RESULTS The response rate was 79.4%. In 2007, 35% of practices had EHRs, up from 23% in 2005. Among practices with EHRs, there was little change between 2005 and 2007 in the availability of nine of ten EHR features; the notable exception was electronic prescribing, reported as available in 44.7% of practices with EHRs in 2005 and 70.8% in 2007. Use of EHR functions changed inconsequentially, with more than one out of five physicians not using each available function regularly in both 2005 and 2007. Only electronic prescribing increased substantially: in 2005, 19.9% of physicians with this function available used it most or all the time, compared with 42.6% in 2007 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS By 2007, more than one third of practices in Massachusetts reported having EHRs; the availability and use of electronic prescribing within these systems has increased. In contrast, physicians reported little change in the availability and use of other EHR functions. System refinements, certification efforts, and health policies, including standards development, should address the gaps in both EHR adoption and the use of key functions.

Imminent adopters of electronic health records in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests electronic health records (EHRs) can improve quality and efficiency, provider adoption rates in the US ambulatory setting are relatively low. Prior studies have identified factors correlated with EHR use, but less is known about characteristics of physicians on the verge of adoption. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of physicians who are imminent adopters of EHRs with EHR users and non-users. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey was mailed (June - November 2005) to a stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts. One physician from each practice (n=1884) was randomly selected to participate. Overall, 1345 physicians (71.4%) responded to the survey, with 1082 eligible for analysis due to exclusion criteria. 'Imminent adopters' were those planning to adopt EHRs within 12 months. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed physician and practice characteristics, availability of technology, barriers to adoption or expansion of health information technology (HIT), computer proficiency, and financial considerations. RESULTS: Compared to non-users, imminent adopters were younger, more experienced with technology, and more often in practices engaged in quality improvement. More imminent adopters owned or partly owned their practices (57.4%) than users (33.5%; p<0.001), but fewer imminent adopters owned their practices than non-users (65.7%; p<0.001). Additionally, more imminent adopters (26.0%) reported personal financial incentives for HIT use than users (14.8%; p<0.001) and non-users (10.8%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Imminent adopters of EHRs differed from users and non-users. Financial considerations appear to play a major role in adoption decisions. Knowledge of these differences may assist policy-makers and healthcare leaders as they work to increase EHR adoption rates.

An On-Treatment Analysis of the MARQUIS Study: Interventions to Improve Inpatient Medication Reconciliation.

It is unclear which medication reconciliation interventions are most effective at reducing inpatient medication discrepancies. Five United States hospitals' interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) teams were virtually mentored by QI-trained physicians. Sites implemented one to seven evidence-based interventions in 791 patients during the 25-month implementation period. Three interventions were associated with significant decreases in potentially harmful discrepancy rates: (1) defining clinical roles and responsibilities, (2) training, and (3) hiring staff to perform discharge medication reconciliation. Two interventions were associated with significant increases in potentially harmful discrepancy rates: training staff to take medication histories and implementing a new electronic health record (EHR). Hospitals should focus first on hiring and training pharmacy staff to assist with medication reconciliation at discharge and delineating roles and responsibilities of clinical staff. We caution hospitals implementing a large vendor EHR, as medication discrepancies may increase. Finally, the effect of medication history training on discrepancies needs further study.

Physicians and electronic health records: a statewide survey.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) allow for a variety of functions, ranging from visit documentation to laboratory test ordering, but little is known about physicians' actual use of these functions. METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 1884 physicians in Massachusetts by mail and assessed availability and use of EHR functions, predictors of use, and the relationships between EHR use and physicians' perceptions of medical practice. RESULTS: A total of 1345 physicians responded to the survey (71.4% response rate), and 387 (28.8%) reported that their practice had adopted EHRs. More than 80% of physicians with EHRs reported having the ability to view laboratory reports (84.8%) and document visits electronically (84.0%), but considerably fewer reported being able to order laboratory tests electronically (46.8%) or transmit prescriptions to a pharmacy electronically (44.7%). Fewer than half of the physicians who had systems with clinical decision support, transmittal of electronic prescriptions, and radiology order entry actually used these functions most or all of the time. Compared with physicians who had not adopted EHRs, EHR users reported more positive views of the effects of computers on health care; there were no significant differences in these attitudes between high and low users of EHRs. Overall, about 1 in 4 physicians reported dissatisfaction with medical practice; there was no difference in this measure by EHR adoption or use. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in the functions available in EHRs and in the extent to which physicians use them. Future work should emphasize factors that affect the use of available functions.

Readiness for electronic health records: comparison of characteristics of practices in a collaborative with the remainder of Massachusetts.

OBJECTIVE: The Massachusetts e-Health Collaborative (MAeHC) is implementing electronic health records (EHRs) in physicians' offices throughout three diverse communities. This study's objective was to assess the degree to which these practices are representative of physicians' practices statewide. DESIGN: We surveyed all MAeHC physicians (n=464) and compared their responses to those of a contemporaneously surveyed statewide random sample (n=1884). MEASUREMENTS: The survey questionnaire assessed practice characteristics related to EHR adoption, prevailing office culture related to quality and safety, attitudes toward health information technology (HIT) and perceptions of medical practice. RESULTS: A total of 355 MAeHC physicians (77%) and 1345 physicians from the statewide sample (71%) completed the survey. MAeHC practices resembled practices throughout Massachusetts in terms of practice size, physician age and gender, prevailing financial incentives for quality performance and HIT adoption and available resources for practice expansion. MAeHC practices were more likely to be located in rural areas (9.5% vs 4.4%, P=0.004). Physicians in both samples responded similarly to six of seven self-assessments of the office practice environment for quality and safety. Internet connections were more prevalent among MAeHC practices than across the state (96% vs 83%, P<0.001), but similar proportions of MAeHC physicians (83%) and statewide physicians (86%) used the internet daily (P=0.19). CONCLUSION: MAeHC is implementing EHRs and health information exchange among communities with physicians and practices that appear generally representative of Massachusetts. The lessons learned from this pilot project should be applicable statewide and to other states with large numbers of physicians in small office practices.

Effects of a multifaceted medication reconciliation quality improvement intervention on patient safety: final results of the MARQUIS study.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional discrepancies across care settings are a common form of medication error and can contribute to patient harm. Medication reconciliation can reduce discrepancies; however, effective implementation in real-world settings is challenging. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic quality improvement (QI) study at five US hospitals, two of which included concurrent controls. The intervention consisted of local implementation of medication reconciliation best practices, utilising an evidence-based toolkit with 11 intervention components. Trained QI mentors conducted monthly site phone calls and two site visits during the intervention, which lasted from December 2011 through June 2014. The primary outcome was number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient; secondary outcome was total discrepancies regardless of potential for harm. Time series analysis used multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: Across five sites, 1648 patients were sampled: 613 during baseline and 1035 during the implementation period. Overall, potentially harmful discrepancies did not decrease over time beyond baseline temporal trends, adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.97 per month (95% CI 0.86 to 1.08), p=0.53. The intervention was associated with a reduction in total medication discrepancies, IRR 0.92 per month (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97), p=0.002. Of the four sites that implemented interventions, three had reductions in potentially harmful discrepancies. The fourth site, which implemented interventions and installed a new electronic health record (EHR), saw an increase in discrepancies, as did the fifth site, which did not implement any interventions but also installed a new EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Mentored implementation of a multifaceted medication reconciliation QI initiative was associated with a reduction in total, but not potentially harmful, medication discrepancies. The effect of EHR implementation on medication discrepancies warrants further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01337063.

Adverse drug events in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events related to drugs occur frequently among inpatients, and many of these events are preventable. However, few data are available on adverse drug events among outpatients. We conducted a study to determine the rates, types, severity, and preventability of such events among outpatients and to identify preventive strategies. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study, including a survey of patients and a chart review, at four adult primary care practices in Boston (two hospital-based and two community-based), involving a total of 1202 outpatients who received at least one prescription during a four-week period. Prescriptions were computerized at two of the practices and handwritten at the other two. RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who responded to the survey (response rate, 55 percent), 162 had adverse drug events (25 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 29 percent), with a total of 181 events (27 per 100 patients). Twenty-four of the events (13 percent) were serious, 51 (28 percent) were ameliorable, and 20 (11 percent) were preventable. Of the 51 ameliorable events, 32 (63 percent) were attributed to the physician's failure to respond to medication-related symptoms and 19 (37 percent) to the patient's failure to inform the physician of the symptoms. The medication classes most frequently involved in adverse drug events were selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (10 percent), beta-blockers (9 percent), angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (8 percent), and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents (8 percent). On multivariate analysis, only the number of medications taken was significantly associated with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events related to drugs are common in primary care, and many are preventable or ameliorable. Monitoring for and acting on symptoms are important. Improving communication between outpatients and providers may help prevent adverse events related to drugs.

Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Although sleep deprivation has been shown to impair neurobehavioral performance, few studies have measured its effects on medical errors. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized study comparing the rates of serious medical errors made by interns while they were working according to a traditional schedule with extended (24 hours or more) work shifts every other shift (an "every third night" call schedule) and while they were working according to an intervention schedule that eliminated extended work shifts and reduced the number of hours worked per week. Incidents were identified by means of a multidisciplinary, four-pronged approach that included direct, continuous observation. Two physicians who were unaware of the interns' schedule assignments independently rated each incident. RESULTS: During a total of 2203 patient-days involving 634 admissions, interns made 35.9 percent more serious medical errors during the traditional schedule than during the intervention schedule (136.0 vs. 100.1 per 1000 patient-days, P<0.001), including 56.6 percent more nonintercepted serious errors (P<0.001). The total rate of serious errors on the critical care units was 22.0 percent higher during the traditional schedule than during the intervention schedule (193.2 vs. 158.4 per 1000 patient-days, P<0.001). Interns made 20.8 percent more serious medication errors during the traditional schedule than during the intervention schedule (99.7 vs. 82.5 per 1000 patient-days, P=0.03). Interns also made 5.6 times as many serious diagnostic errors during the traditional schedule as during the intervention schedule (18.6 vs. 3.3 per 1000 patient-days, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interns made substantially more serious medical errors when they worked frequent shifts of 24 hours or more than when they worked shorter shifts. Eliminating extended work shifts and reducing the number of hours interns work per week can reduce serious medical errors in the intensive care unit.

Patient-reported medication symptoms in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence and character of medication-related symptoms in primary care and their relationship to adverse drug events (ADEs) or about factors that affect patient-physician communication regarding medication symptoms. METHODS: The study included 661 patients who received prescriptions from physicians at 4 adult primary care practices. We interviewed patients 2 weeks and 3 months after the index visit, reviewed patients' medical records, and surveyed physicians whose patients identified medication-related symptoms. Physician reviewers determined whether medication symptoms constituted true ADEs. We used multivariable regression to examine factors associated with patients' decision to discuss symptoms with a physician and with physicians' decision to alter therapy. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients identified 286 medication-related symptoms but discussed only 196 (69%) with their physicians. Physicians changed therapy in response to 76% of reported symptoms. Patients' failure to discuss 90 medication symptoms resulted in 19 (21%) ameliorable and 2 (2%) preventable ADEs. Physicians' failure to change therapy in 48 cases resulted in 31 (65%) ameliorable ADEs. In multivariable analyses, patients who took more medications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.08; P<.001) and had multiple medication allergies (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.03-1.11; P = .001) were more likely to discuss symptoms. Male physicians (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.26; P = .002) and physicians at 2 practices were more likely to change therapy (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.17-1.28; P<.001; and OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.24; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians may be able to reduce the duration and/or the severity of many ADEs by eliciting and addressing patients' medication symptoms.

Recovery from medical errors: the critical care nursing safety net.

BACKGROUND: Safety initiatives have primarily focused on physicians despite the fact that nurses provide the majority of direct inpatient care. Patient surveillance and preventing errors from harming patients represent essential nursing responsibilities but have received relatively little study. METHODS: The study was conducted between July 2003 and July 2004 in a 10-bed academic coronary care unit. Direct observation of nursing care and solicited and institutional incident reports were used to find potential incidents. Two physician reviewers rated incidents as to the presence, preventability, and potential severity of harm of errors and associated factors. RESULTS: Overall data were collected for 147 days, including 150 hours of direct observation. One hundred forty-two recovered medical errors were found, including 61% (86/142) during direct observations. Most errors (69%; 98/142) were intercepted before reaching the patients. Errors that reached patients included 13% that were mitigated before resulting in harm and 18% that were ameliorated before more severe harm could occur. DISCUSSION: Protecting patients from the potentially dangerous consequences of medical errors is one of the many ways critical care nurses improve patient safety. Interventions designed to increase the ability of nurses to recover and promptly report errors have the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common among inpatients and many are preventable with computerized prescribing. Relatively little is known about outpatient prescribing errors or the impact of computerized prescribing in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates, types, and severity of outpatient prescribing errors and understand the potential impact of computerized prescribing. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in 4 adult primary care practices in Boston using prescription review, patient survey, and chart review to identify medication errors, potential adverse drug events (ADEs) and preventable ADEs. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients over age 18 who received a prescription from 24 participating physicians. RESULTS: We screened 1879 prescriptions from 1202 patients, and completed 661 surveys (response rate 55%). Of the prescriptions, 143 (7.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.4% to 8.8%) contained a prescribing error. Three errors led to preventable ADEs and 62 (43%; 3% of all prescriptions) had potential for patient injury (potential ADEs); 1 was potentially life-threatening (2%) and 15 were serious (24%). Errors in frequency (n=77, 54%) and dose (n=26, 18%) were common. The rates of medication errors and potential ADEs were not significantly different at basic computerized prescribing sites (4.3% vs 11.0%, P=.31; 2.6% vs 4.0%, P=.16) compared to handwritten sites. Advanced checks (including dose and frequency checking) could have prevented 95% of potential ADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors occurred in 7.6% of outpatient prescriptions and many could have harmed patients. Basic computerized prescribing systems may not be adequate to reduce errors. More advanced systems with dose and frequency checking are likely needed to prevent potentially harmful errors.

Evaluating inpatient mortality: a new electronic review process that gathers information from front-line providers.

IMPORTANCE: Accurately and routinely identifying factors contributing to inpatient mortality remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, implementation and performance of a new electronic mortality review method 1 year after implementation. METHODS: An analysis of data gathered from an electronic instrument that queries front-line providers on their opinions on quality and safety related issues, including potential preventability, immediately after a patient's death. Comparison was also made with chart reviews and administrative data. RESULTS: In the first 12 months, reviewers responded to 89% of reviews sent (2547 responses from 2869 requests), resulting in at least one review in 99% (1058/1068) of inpatient deaths. Clinicians provided suggestions for improvement in 7.7% (191/2491) of completed reviews, and reported that 4.8% (50/1052) of deaths may have been preventable. Quality and safety issues contributing to potentially preventable inpatient mortality included delays in obtaining or responding to tests (15/50, 30%), communication barriers (10/50, 20%) and healthcare associated infections (9/50, 18%). Independent, blinded chart review of a sample of clinician reviews detected potential preventability in 10% (2/20) of clinician reported cases as potentially preventable. Comparison with administrative data showed poor agreement on the identification of complications with neither source consistently identifying more complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our early experience supports the feasibility and utility of an electronic tool to collect real-time clinical information related to inpatient deaths directly from front-line providers. Caregivers reported information that was complementary to data available from chart review and administrative sources in identifying potentially preventable deaths and informing quality improvement efforts.

Understanding of drug indications by ambulatory care patients.

PURPOSE: Patients' knowledge of the indications of their prescription medications was studied and those medications that were most likely to be taken without patients understanding the correct indication were identified. METHODS: Adult patients who received care at four primary care practices were surveyed. Patients were eligible to participate if they were over 18 years old and had received a prescription from a participating physician at a clinic visit. Patients were telephoned and asked to retrieve the bottles of all medications they were currently taking, identify their medications, and state the reason they took each medicine. The primary outcome was absent or incorrect knowledge of a drug's indication. RESULTS: A total of 2340 prescription medications were used by the 616 patients whose data were analyzed. Eighty-three patients (13.5%) lacked knowledge of the indication for at least one of their prescription medications. They did not know the indication for 148 medications (6.3%). After multivariable adjustment, lack of knowledge was more common for cardiovascular drugs (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.19) and less common for diabetes medications (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.84) and analgesics (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-1.01) compared with all other medications, and more common if the patient taking these medications was older, black, or had a high school education or less. CONCLUSION: More than 13% of patients in primary care practices did not know the indication of at least one of their prescription medications. Lack of knowledge was most prevalent for cardiovascular medications.

Preventive care for low-income women in massachusetts post-health reform.

BACKGROUND: Before enacting health insurance reform in 2006, Massachusetts provided free breast, cervical cancer, and cardiovascular risk screening for low-income uninsured women through a federally subsidized program called the Women's Health Network (WHN). This article examines whether, as women transitioned to insurance to pay for screening tests after health reform legislation was passed, cancer and cardiovascular disease screening changed among WHN participants between 2004 and 2010. METHODS: We examined claims data from the Massachusetts health insurance exchange and chart review data to measure utilization of mammography, Pap smear, and blood pressure screening among WHN participants in five community health centers in greater Boston. We conducted a longitudinal analysis, by insurance type, using generalized estimating equations to examine the likelihood of screening at recommended intervals in the postreform period compared to the prereform period. RESULTS: Pre- and postreform, we found a high prevalence of recommended mammography (86% vs. 88%), Pap smear (88% vs. 89%), and blood pressure screening (87% vs. 91%) that was similar or improved for most women postreform. Screening use differed by insurance type. Recommended mammography screening was statistically significantly increased among women with state-subsidized private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.58, p<0.05). Women with unsubsidized private insurance or Medicare had decreased Pap smear use postreform. Although screening prevalence was high, 31% of women required state safety-net funds to pay for screening tests. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a continued need for safety-net programs to support preventive screening among low-income women after implementation of healthcare reform.

Guided medication dosing for elderly emergency patients using real-time, computerized decision support.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a real-time computerized decision support tool in the emergency department that guides medication dosing for the elderly on physician ordering behavior and on adverse drug events (ADEs). DESIGN: A prospective controlled trial was conducted over 26 weeks. The status of the decision support tool alternated OFF (7/17/06-8/29/06), ON (8/29/06-10/10/06), OFF (10/10/06-11/28/06), and ON (11/28/06-1/16/07) in consecutive blocks during the study period. In patients ≥65 who were ordered certain benzodiazepines, opiates, non-steroidals, or sedative-hypnotics, the computer application either adjusted the dosing or suggested a different medication. Physicians could accept or reject recommendations. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome compared medication ordering consistent with recommendations during ON versus OFF periods. Secondary outcomes included the admission rate, emergency department length of stay for discharged patients, 10-fold dosing orders, use of a second drug to reverse the original medication, and rate of ADEs using previously validated explicit chart review. RESULTS: 2398 orders were placed for 1407 patients over 1548 visits. The majority (49/53; 92.5%) of recommendations for alternate medications were declined. More orders were consistent with dosing recommendations during ON (403/1283; 31.4%) than OFF (256/1115; 23%) periods (p≤0.0001). 673 (43%) visits were reviewed for ADEs. The rate of ADEs was lower during ON (8/237; 3.4%) compared with OFF (31/436; 7.1%) periods (p=0.02). The remaining secondary outcomes showed no difference. LIMITATIONS: Single institution study, retrospective chart review for ADEs. CONCLUSION: Though overall agreement with recommendations was low, real-time computerized decision support resulted in greater acceptance of medication recommendations. Fewer ADEs were observed when computerized decision support was active.

Ambulatory prescribing errors among community-based providers in two states.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the frequency and types of prescribing errors in the ambulatory setting among community-based, primary care providers. Therefore, the rates and types of prescribing errors were assessed among community-based, primary care providers in two states. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A non-randomized cross-sectional study was conducted of 48 providers in New York and 30 providers in Massachusetts, all of whom used paper prescriptions, from September 2005 to November 2006. Using standardized methodology, prescriptions and medical records were reviewed to identify errors. RESULTS: 9385 prescriptions were analyzed from 5955 patients. The overall prescribing error rate, excluding illegibility errors, was 36.7 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI 30.7 to 44.0) and did not vary significantly between providers from each state (p=0.39). One or more non-illegibility errors were found in 28% of prescriptions. Rates of illegibility errors were very high (175.0 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 169.1 to 181.3). Inappropriate abbreviation and direction errors also occurred frequently (13.4 and 4.2 errors per 100 prescriptions, respectively). Reviewers determined that the vast majority of errors could have been eliminated through the use of e-prescribing with clinical decision support. DISCUSSION: Prescribing errors appear to occur at very high rates among community-based primary care providers, especially when compared with studies of academic-affiliated providers that have found nearly threefold lower error rates. Illegibility errors are particularly problematical. CONCLUSIONS: Further characterizing prescribing errors of community-based providers may inform strategies to improve ambulatory medication safety, especially e-prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00225576.

Impact of robotic antineoplastic preparation on safety, workflow, and costs.

PURPOSE: Antineoplastic preparation presents unique safety concerns and consumes significant pharmacy staff time and costs. Robotic antineoplastic and adjuvant medication compounding may provide incremental safety and efficiency advantages compared with standard pharmacy practices. METHODS: We conducted a direct observation trial in an academic medical center pharmacy to compare the effects of usual/manual antineoplastic and adjuvant drug preparation (baseline period) with robotic preparation (intervention period). The primary outcomes were serious medication errors and staff safety events with the potential for harm of patients and staff, respectively. Secondary outcomes included medication accuracy determined by gravimetric techniques, medication preparation time, and the costs of both ancillary materials used during drug preparation and personnel time. RESULTS: Among 1,421 and 972 observed medication preparations, we found nine (0.7%) and seven (0.7%) serious medication errors (P = .8) and 73 (5.1%) and 28 (2.9%) staff safety events (P = .007) in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Drugs failed accuracy measurements in 12.5% (23 of 184) and 0.9% (one of 110) of preparations in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively (P < .001). Mean drug preparation time increased by 47% when using the robot (P = .009). Labor costs were similar in both study periods, although the ancillary material costs decreased by 56% in the intervention period (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although robotically prepared antineoplastic and adjuvant medications did not reduce serious medication errors, both staff safety and accuracy of medication preparation were improved significantly. Future studies are necessary to address the overall cost effectiveness of these robotic implementations.

Do electronic health records create more errors than they prevent?

While use of electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic prescribing can prevent many medication errors, it may also create opportunities for new errors. Therefore, we conducted a study to examine providers' perception of opportunities for errors introduced by the use of EHRs.