Home Forums Discussions General Discussion ePrescribe is starting to suck

How is version 6 about drug interactions and warnings? In 5.029 if I left them turned on it became unusable quickly because it reported dumb things. (Like, warning that lisinopril and HCTZ interacted to lower blood pressure... I mean DUHHH!) So, despite the fact that if could be very useful, I have been running with alerts off.

I never noticed that about the warnings with BP meds. That's funny.

Just as funny is the product insert that comes with Ambien. Says it may cause drowsiness.

I work with them off as well. And, in 5.0.28 at least, you can't separate them.

Of course, you do know there are three seeings (I believe) for interactions in the New Crop site, but I found turning it down to lowest still had many interactions that were silly.

Yes, I did know, but as you said, they are still too much. I despair that this is going to ever be useful, just like the package inserts, and for the same reason; warnings about everything quickly become warnings about nothing.

Still useless in Version 6, unfortunately for MU you must attest to having them turned on - on, but ignored.

Another fine mess...
The EMR is supposed to alert you to interactions, but the system is overly sensitive leading to alert fatigue. So then people turn the alert off. Or do you keep them on and ignore them to meet MU requirements (and PERHAPS for patient safety)?

What we heard at a recent "risk reduction" malpractice seminar is that the lawyers will be watching. So in case of a suit that might involve medication error, they will want to check to see if you had the alerts turned on or not. This is truly a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't": if the alert is turned off, then you are liable for disabling it. If it is turned on, you are liable for over-riding it.

In our case, it is "damned if you do." We have never turned it on and never will."

I just hope the latest version allows you to turn it off without turning off the allergies.

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.?