The effect of Computerised Physician Order Entry on prescribing errors: An interrupted time-series study at a secondary referral hospital in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Computerised Physician Order Entry (CPOE) software is increasingly used across the world to improve medication safety. However, few high-quality studies have reviewed the impact of CPOE on prescribing errors and patient harm. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a hybrid CPOE-paper prescribing system on prescribing errors at a secondary hospital site. DESIGN: An interrupted time-series study was conducted by identifying prescribing errors via prospective medical chart review before and after the implementation of CPOE across three medical wards. PARTICIPANTS: The medication orders of all patients admitted to the medical wards during the study period were reviewed. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a CPOE across three medical wards. MEASURES: A blinded expert panel risk stratified the errors according to level of severity, preventability and potential for harm. Pearson's chi square and segmented regressions were used to determine if there were differences in prescribing errors pre- and post-CPOE implementation. KEY RESULTS: A total of 10,535 medication orders were reviewed pre-CPOE and 13,841 medication orders reviewed post-CPOE. Analysis demonstrated that after implementation of CPOE there were reductions in the proportion of orders with one or more of any error (-30.1%, 95 %CI: -36.5%, -23.7%, p < 0.001). Reductions in the proportion of orders with one or more errors were seen across the error categories of dosing errors (-20.1%, 95 %CI: -25.1%, -15%, p < 0.001), procedural/administrative errors (-18.9%, 95 %CI: -22.8%, -15%, p < 0.001), and therapeutic errors (-2.6%, 95 %CI: -4.1%, -1%, p = 0.002). Post-CPOE there were reductions in the proportion of orders with at least one non-intercepted serious error (-12.6%, 95 %CI: -16.4%, -8.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of CPOE was associated with reductions in prescribing errors. There is also evidence that this translated into a reduced risk of harm to patients post-CPOE implementation through the reduction in actual adverse drug events.

Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers' perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. SETTING: All healthcare settings. PARTICIPANTS: Medical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults. OUTCOMES: Prescribers' perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults. RESULTS: 21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians' perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported. CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers' behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.

First do no harm: a real need to deprescribe in older patients.

Inappropriate polypharmacy in older patients imposes a significant burden of decreased physical functioning, increased risk of falls, delirium and other geriatric syndromes, hospital admissions and death. The single most important predictor of inappropriate prescribing and risk of adverse drug events in older patients is the number of prescribed medications. Deprescribing is the process of tapering or stopping drugs, with the goal of minimising polypharmacy and improving outcomes. Barriers to deprescribing include underappreciation of the scale of polypharmacy-related harm by both patients and prescribers; multiple incentives to overprescribe; a narrow focus on lists of potentially inappropriate medications; reluctance of prescribers and patients to discontinue medication for fear of unfavourable sequelae; and uncertainty about effectiveness of strategies to reduce polypharmacy. Ways of countering such barriers comprise reframing the issue to one of highest quality patient-centred care; openly discussing benefit-harm trade-offs with patients and assessing their willingness to consider deprescribing; targeting patients according to highest risk of adverse drug events; targeting drugs more likely to be non-beneficial; accessing field-tested discontinuation regimens for specific drugs; fostering shared education and training in deprescribing among all members of the health care team; and undertaking deprescribing over an extended time frame under the supervision of a single generalist clinician.

An evaluation framework for non-medical prescribing research.

Without robust and credible evidence for the benefits in health outcomes of non-medical prescribing, widespread implementation will be challenging. Our aim is to develop a consistent evaluation framework that could be applied to non-medical prescribing research. An informal collaboration was initiated in 2008 by a group of pharmacists from Australia and New Zealand to assist in information sharing, pilot design, methodologies and evaluation for pharmacist prescribing. Different pilots used different models, methodologies and evaluation. It was agreed that the development of a consistent evaluation framework to be applied to future research on non-medical prescribing was required. The framework would help to align the outcomes of different research pilots and enable the comparison of endpoints to determine the effectiveness of a non-medical prescribing intervention.

Pilot of a National Inpatient Medication Chart in Australia: improving prescribing safety and enabling prescribing training.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: Prescribing errors are common and are caused by multiple factors. Standard medication charts have been recommended by British and Australian Health services. A study of a standard medication chart in five hospitals in one state of Australia significantly reduced prescribing errors. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: A standard medication chart developed in one area can be adopted through a collaborative process and successfully implemented across a diverse country resulting in similar reductions in prescribing errors. Three of the four stages of the prescribing process (information gathering, decision making and communication of instructions) can be improved by the use of an improved standard medication chart. The introduction of a standard medication chart has enabled development of standard prescribing education programmes. AIMS: To establish whether a standard national inpatient medication chart (NIMC) could be implemented across a range of sites in Australia and reduce frequency of prescribing errors and improve the completion of adverse drug reaction (ADR) and warfarin documentation. METHODS: A medication chart, which had previously been implemented in one state, was piloted in 22 public hospitals across Australia. Prospective before and after observational audits of prescribing errors were undertaken by trained nurse and pharmacist teams. The introduction of the chart was accompanied by local education of prescribers and presentation of baseline audit findings. RESULTS After the introduction of the NIMC, prescribing errors decreased by almost one-third, from 6383 errors in 15,557 orders, a median (range) of 3 (0-48) per patient to 4293 in 15,416 orders, 2 (0-45) per patient (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.001). The documentation of drugs causing previous ADRs increased significantly from 81.9% to 88.9% of drugs (χ(2) test, P < 0.001). The documentation of the indication for warfarin increased from 12.1 to 34.3% (χ(2) test, P= 0.001) and the documentation of target INR increased from 10.8 to 70.0% (χ(2) test, P < 0.001) after implementation of the chart. CONCLUSIONS: National implementation of a standard medication chart is possible. Similar reduction in the rate of prescribing errors can be achieved in multiple sites across one country. The consequent benefits for patient care and training of staff could be significant.

Safe medication practice: attitudes of medical students about to begin their intern year.

OBJECTIVES: Interns are expected to prescribe effectively and safely. This study aimed to assess medical students' perceptions of their readiness to prescribe, associated risks and outcome if involved in an error, as well as their perceptions of available support. METHODS: We carried out a survey of 101 students prior to their intern year using a structured questionnaire. An indication of agreement with 21 closed statements was sought. Thematic clusters were identified by factor analysis. RESULTS: Most students (84) felt they would be able to prescribe for most simple complaints and complete discharge prescriptions (81). In high-risk situations, fewer students felt comfortable with prescribing: only 54 felt sufficiently confident to prescribe warfarin and 66 felt confident enough to order i.v. fluids. Many felt support such as guidelines was available (87) and that, if in doubt, they could clarify instructions and seek advice. Students were aware of errors occurring within the medication system; however, most (99) believed that the medicines they prescribed would be safely administered. There was a mixed perception of medication errors: 40 felt that their prescribing errors would not be dealt with constructively and 79 indicated that a culture existed at their hospitals where clinicians would be blamed if they made a prescribing error. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of medical school education and prior to assuming responsibility for prescribing, students felt unprepared and perceived that negative outcomes would result if they were involved in errors. These findings indicate that much more work is needed to prepare doctors to prescribe safely, improve the safety of prescribing systems and address the issue of blame.

Why do interns make prescribing errors? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyse factors underlying intern prescribing errors to inform development of specific medication-safety interventions. DESIGN: A prospective qualitative study that involved face-to-face interviews and human-factor analysis. SETTING: A tertiary referral teaching hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, February-June, 2004. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen intern prescribers involved in 21 errors. METHOD: A structured questionnaire was used to identify factors causing the errors. Transcripts were analysed on the basis of human-error theory to identify underlying themes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors underlying prescribing errors. RESULTS: Errors were multifactorial, with a median of 4 (range, 2-5) different types of performance-influencing factors per error. Lack of drug knowledge was not the single causative factor in any incident. The factors in new-prescribing errors included team, individual, patient and task factors. Factors associated with errors in represcribing were environment, task and number of weeks into the term. Defences against error, such as other clinicians and guidelines, were porous, and supervision was inadequate or not tailored to the patient, task, intern or environment. Factors were underpinned by an underlying culture in which prescribing is seen as a repetitive low-risk chore. CONCLUSION: To reduce the risk of prescribing errors, a range of strategies addressing patient, task, individual, team and environment factors must be introduced.