Computer based medication error reporting: Insights and implications

M. R. Miller, J. S. Clark, C. U. Lehmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Despite the growing use of error reporting tools, the healthcare industry is inexperienced in receiving, understanding, and analyzing these reports. Objective: To assess the accuracy and define the epidemiology of medication error reports. Design, setting, and patients: A retrospective cohort study of 581 error reports containing 1010 medication errors reported between July 2001 and January 2003 at a large academic children's institution. Main outcome measures: Correct classification and types of medication errors. Results: Of the 1010 medication errors reviewed, 298 (30%) were prescribing errors, 245 (24%) were dispensing errors, 410 (41%) were administration errors, and 57 (6%) involved medication administration records (MAR). Following expert review, 208 errors (21%) were deleted because they had been inappropriately coded as errors and 97 (10%) were added as they were not initially coded despite having occurred. In addition, 352 medication error reports needed to have the subtype of error reclassified; 207 (59%) of these involved the reporter choosing the non-descript "other" category on the reporting tool (such as "Prescribing other") which was able to be reclassified by expert review. The overall distribution of error type categories did not change significantly with expert review, although only MAR errors were underreported by the reporters. The most common medications were anti-infectives (17%), pain/sedative agents (15%), nutritional agents (11%), gastrointestinal agents (8%), and cardiovascular agents (7%). Conclusions: Despite clear imperfections in the data captured, medication error reporting tools are effective as a means of collecting reliable information on errors rapidly and in real time. Our data suggest that administration errors are at least as common as prescribing errors in children. Further research is needed, not only in the area of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) for children, but also on ways to make the dispensing and administration of medications safer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)208-213
Number of pages6
JournalQuality and Safety in Health Care
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2006

Fingerprint

Medication Errors
Medical Order Entry Systems
Gastrointestinal Agents
Cardiovascular Agents
Health Care Sector
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Epidemiology
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pain
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Computer based medication error reporting : Insights and implications. / Miller, M. R.; Clark, J. S.; Lehmann, C. U.

In: Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 15, No. 3, 06.2006, p. 208-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Miller, M. R. ; Clark, J. S. ; Lehmann, C. U. / Computer based medication error reporting : Insights and implications. In: Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2006 ; Vol. 15, No. 3. pp. 208-213.
@article{873655f7be4a4e008db83bc6e33a9dbd,
title = "Computer based medication error reporting: Insights and implications",
abstract = "Background: Despite the growing use of error reporting tools, the healthcare industry is inexperienced in receiving, understanding, and analyzing these reports. Objective: To assess the accuracy and define the epidemiology of medication error reports. Design, setting, and patients: A retrospective cohort study of 581 error reports containing 1010 medication errors reported between July 2001 and January 2003 at a large academic children's institution. Main outcome measures: Correct classification and types of medication errors. Results: Of the 1010 medication errors reviewed, 298 (30{\%}) were prescribing errors, 245 (24{\%}) were dispensing errors, 410 (41{\%}) were administration errors, and 57 (6{\%}) involved medication administration records (MAR). Following expert review, 208 errors (21{\%}) were deleted because they had been inappropriately coded as errors and 97 (10{\%}) were added as they were not initially coded despite having occurred. In addition, 352 medication error reports needed to have the subtype of error reclassified; 207 (59{\%}) of these involved the reporter choosing the non-descript {"}other{"} category on the reporting tool (such as {"}Prescribing other{"}) which was able to be reclassified by expert review. The overall distribution of error type categories did not change significantly with expert review, although only MAR errors were underreported by the reporters. The most common medications were anti-infectives (17{\%}), pain/sedative agents (15{\%}), nutritional agents (11{\%}), gastrointestinal agents (8{\%}), and cardiovascular agents (7{\%}). Conclusions: Despite clear imperfections in the data captured, medication error reporting tools are effective as a means of collecting reliable information on errors rapidly and in real time. Our data suggest that administration errors are at least as common as prescribing errors in children. Further research is needed, not only in the area of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) for children, but also on ways to make the dispensing and administration of medications safer.",
author = "Miller, {M. R.} and Clark, {J. S.} and Lehmann, {C. U.}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1136/qshc.2005.016733",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "208--213",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computer based medication error reporting

T2 - Insights and implications

AU - Miller, M. R.

AU - Clark, J. S.

AU - Lehmann, C. U.

PY - 2006/6

Y1 - 2006/6

N2 - Background: Despite the growing use of error reporting tools, the healthcare industry is inexperienced in receiving, understanding, and analyzing these reports. Objective: To assess the accuracy and define the epidemiology of medication error reports. Design, setting, and patients: A retrospective cohort study of 581 error reports containing 1010 medication errors reported between July 2001 and January 2003 at a large academic children's institution. Main outcome measures: Correct classification and types of medication errors. Results: Of the 1010 medication errors reviewed, 298 (30%) were prescribing errors, 245 (24%) were dispensing errors, 410 (41%) were administration errors, and 57 (6%) involved medication administration records (MAR). Following expert review, 208 errors (21%) were deleted because they had been inappropriately coded as errors and 97 (10%) were added as they were not initially coded despite having occurred. In addition, 352 medication error reports needed to have the subtype of error reclassified; 207 (59%) of these involved the reporter choosing the non-descript "other" category on the reporting tool (such as "Prescribing other") which was able to be reclassified by expert review. The overall distribution of error type categories did not change significantly with expert review, although only MAR errors were underreported by the reporters. The most common medications were anti-infectives (17%), pain/sedative agents (15%), nutritional agents (11%), gastrointestinal agents (8%), and cardiovascular agents (7%). Conclusions: Despite clear imperfections in the data captured, medication error reporting tools are effective as a means of collecting reliable information on errors rapidly and in real time. Our data suggest that administration errors are at least as common as prescribing errors in children. Further research is needed, not only in the area of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) for children, but also on ways to make the dispensing and administration of medications safer.

AB - Background: Despite the growing use of error reporting tools, the healthcare industry is inexperienced in receiving, understanding, and analyzing these reports. Objective: To assess the accuracy and define the epidemiology of medication error reports. Design, setting, and patients: A retrospective cohort study of 581 error reports containing 1010 medication errors reported between July 2001 and January 2003 at a large academic children's institution. Main outcome measures: Correct classification and types of medication errors. Results: Of the 1010 medication errors reviewed, 298 (30%) were prescribing errors, 245 (24%) were dispensing errors, 410 (41%) were administration errors, and 57 (6%) involved medication administration records (MAR). Following expert review, 208 errors (21%) were deleted because they had been inappropriately coded as errors and 97 (10%) were added as they were not initially coded despite having occurred. In addition, 352 medication error reports needed to have the subtype of error reclassified; 207 (59%) of these involved the reporter choosing the non-descript "other" category on the reporting tool (such as "Prescribing other") which was able to be reclassified by expert review. The overall distribution of error type categories did not change significantly with expert review, although only MAR errors were underreported by the reporters. The most common medications were anti-infectives (17%), pain/sedative agents (15%), nutritional agents (11%), gastrointestinal agents (8%), and cardiovascular agents (7%). Conclusions: Despite clear imperfections in the data captured, medication error reporting tools are effective as a means of collecting reliable information on errors rapidly and in real time. Our data suggest that administration errors are at least as common as prescribing errors in children. Further research is needed, not only in the area of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) for children, but also on ways to make the dispensing and administration of medications safer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745224283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745224283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/qshc.2005.016733

DO - 10.1136/qshc.2005.016733

M3 - Article

C2 - 16751472

AN - SCOPUS:33745224283

VL - 15

SP - 208

EP - 213

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 3

ER -