| Title |
Technology-induced errors associated with computerized provider order entry software for older patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-017-0474-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manuel Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés, Ana María Álvarez Díaz, Teresa Gramage Caro, Noelia Vicente Oliveros, Eva Delgado-Silveira, María Muñoz García, Alfonso José Cruz-Jentoft, Teresa Bermejo-Vicedo |
| Abstract |
Background The introduction of new technologies in the prescribing process has seen the emergence of new types of medication errors. Objective To determine the prevalence and consequences of technology-induced prescription errors associated with a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system in hospitalized older patients. Setting Patients 65 years or older admitted to the Departments of Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and Vascular Surgery of a tertiary hospital. Method Prospective observational 6-month study. Technology-induced errors were classified according to various taxonomies. Interrater reliability was measured. Consequences were assessed by interviewing patients and healthcare providers and classified according to their severity. Main outcome measure Prevalence of technology-induced errors. Results A total of 117 patients were included and 107 technology-induced errors were recorded. The prevalence of these errors was 3.65%. Half of the errors were clinical errors (n = 54) and the majority of these were classified as wrong dose, wrong strength, or wrong formulation. Clinical errors were 9 times more likely to be more severe than procedural errors (14.8 vs 1.9%; OR 9.04, 95% CI 1.09-75.07). Most of the errors did not reach the patient. Almost all errors were related to human-machine interactions due to wrong (n = 61) or partial (n = 41) entries. Conclusion Technology-induced errors are common and intrinsic to the implementation of new technologies such as CPOE. The majority of errors appear to be related to human-machine interactions and are of low severity. Prospective trials should be conducted to analyse in detail the way these errors occur and to establish strategies to solve them and increase patient safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 43% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 30 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,147,598
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#75
of 1,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,657
of 327,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.