As most of us suspected,
this recent journal article showed no reduction in prescribing errors with eRx.
So the government's widely acclaimed eRx initiative to improve patient safety has
feet of clay .
I actually spent some time trying to get a copy of this report (without spending the $30) because it didn't sound right to me. I was able to find out that the study looked at eprescribing from 2008. Also, when I looked at the "Appendix" which I was able to see online, it was clear that many "potentially serious errors" were for things like leaving off the type of medication (cream, lotion, etc) or the duration of therapy (as if when you prescribe "Cipro one p.o. bid, #20" it is a serious problem to NOT put "x10 days"). In other words, while I am not sure that eRx reduces errors, I was no means convinced that this study proved that point.
Now there is
this on HIS talk:
"Surescripts and the authors of JAMIA-published article, ?Errors associated with outpatient computerized prescribing systems,? issue a joint statement to clarify the study?s use of the term ?e-prescribing.? The authors point out that their use of the term ?e-prescribing? does not reflect the way the term is used today, nor does it match the federal government?s definition. The study examined what was considered e-prescribing back in in the old days (2008); that is, prescriptions generated by a computer, faxed to a pharmacy, and then printed. You?ve got to admit that ?E-Prescribing Doesn?t Make The Grade? is a far more compelling headline than one that says, ?The Way Things Were Done Three Years Ago Wasn?t All That Great.?
