Errors in the administration of medication in inpatient hospitals: A systematic review of the research literature on commercial computerized physician order entry systems

Errors in the administration of medication represent a significant loss of medical resources and pose life altering or life threatening risks to patients. This paper considered the question, what impact do Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems have on medication errors in the hospital inpatient environment? Previous reviews have examined evidence of the impact of CPOE on medication errors, but have come to ambiguous conclusions as to the impact of CPOE and decision support systems (DSS). Forty-three papers were identified. Thirty-one demonstrated a significant reduction in prescribing error rates for all or some drug types; decreases in minor errors were most often reported. Several studies reported increases in the rate of duplicate orders and failures to remove contraindicated drugs, often attributed to inappropriate design or to an inability to operate the system properly. The evidence on the effectiveness of CPOE to reduce errors in medication administration is compelling though it is limited by modest study sample sizes and designs. ^

The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous system in prevention of percutaneous injury in two hospitals

This study assessed if hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous connection system reduces the number of reported percutaneous injuries, overall and those specifically due to intravenous connection activities.^ Incidence rates were compared before and after hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous system at two hospitals, a full service general hospital and a pediatric hospital. The years 1989-1991 were designated as pre-implementation and 1993 was designated as post-implementation. Data from 1992 were not included in the effectiveness evaluation to allow employees to become familiar with use of the new device. The two hospitals showed rate ratios of 1.37 (95% CI = 1.22-1.54, p $\le$.0001) and 1.63 (95% CI = 1.34-1.97, p $\le$.0001), or a 27.1% and a 38.6% reduction in overall injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for intravenous connection injuries were 2.67 (95% CI = 1.89-3.78, p $\le$.0001) and 3.35 (95% CI = 1.87-6.02, p $\le$.0001), or a 62.5% and a 69.9% reduction in injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for all non-intravenous connection injuries were calculated to control for factors other than device implementation that may have been operating to reduce the injury rate. These rate ratios were lower, 1.21 and 1.44, demonstrating the magnitude of injury reduction due to factors other than device implementation. It was concluded that the device was effective in reduction of numbers of reported percutaneous injuries.^ Use-effectiveness of the system was also assessed by a survey of randomly selected device users to determine satisfaction with the device, frequency of use and barriers to use. Four hundred seventy-eight surveys were returned for a response rate of 50.9%. Approximately 94% of respondents at both hospitals expressed satisfaction with the needleless system and recommended continued use. The survey also revealed that even though over 50% of respondents report using the device "always" or "most of the time" for intravenous medication administration, flushing lines, and connecting secondary intravenous lines, needles were still being used for these same activities. Compatibility, accessibility and other technical problems were reported as reasons for using needles for these activities. These problems must be addressed, by both manufacturers and users, before the needleless system will be effective in prevention of all intravenous connection injuries. ^