PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10(02): 336-347
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688698
Research Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Understanding CancelRx: Results of End-to-End Functional Testing, Proactive Risk Assessment, and Pilot Implementation

Samantha I. Pitts
1   Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Noah Barasch
2   Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Andrew T. Maslen
3   Information Technology, Johns Hopkins Health System, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Bridgette A. Thomas
4   Pharmacy Services, Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Leonard P. Dorissaint
3   Information Technology, Johns Hopkins Health System, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Krista G. Decker
5   Department of Quality Management, Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Sadaf Kazi
2   Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Yushi Yang
6   Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Health System, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
,
Allen R. Chen
7   Departments of Oncology and Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding Dr. Pitts was funded by a grant from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) Foundation.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

21. November 2018

29. März 2019

Publikationsdatum:
22. Mai 2019 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background CancelRx allows prescribers to send electronic cancellation messages to pharmacies when medications are discontinued. Little is known about its functionality and impact on clinical workflows.

Objectives To understand CancelRx functionality, its potential impact on workflows and medication safety risks, and to develop mitigating strategies for risks introduced by implementation.

Methods We conducted direct observations and semi-structured interviews to develop CancelRx use cases and assessed CancelRx in an end-to-end test environment, proactive risk assessment, and pilot implementation from April 16 to July 15, 2018.

Results E-cancellations were sent upon discontinuation of e-prescriptions written within the electronic health record (EHR), but not other medications (e.g., printed prescriptions) and could be initiated by nonprescribers. In our proactive risk assessment, CancelRx implementation eliminated five of seven failure modes in outpatient prescribing to Johns Hopkins pharmacies, but introduced new risks, including (1) failure to act if an e-cancellation was not sent or was unsuccessful; (2) failure to cancel all prescriptions for a medication; (3) errors in manual matching; and (4) erroneous medication cancellations. We identified potential mitigation strategies for these risks. During pilot implementation, 92.4% (428/463) of e-cancellations had confirmed approval by the receiving pharmacy, while 4.5% (21/463) were denied, and 3.0% (14/463) had no e-cancellation response. Among e-cancellations received by the pilot pharmacy, 1.7% (7/408) required manual matching by pharmacy staff. Based on performance in testing, 73.4% (340/463) of completed e-cancellations would be expected to generate an in-basket message, including 21 (6.2%) denials and 319/340 (93.8%) approvals with a note from the pharmacy.

Conclusion CancelRx is an important functionality with the potential to decrease adverse events due to medication errors. However, changes in implementation in our EHR and pharmacy software and enhancements in the CancelRx standard are needed to maximize safety and usability. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of e-cancellation on medication safety.

Keywords

electronic prescribing - medication errors - risk assessment

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study did not involve the use of clinical data requiring human subjects review.


 

  • References

  • 1 Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Borus J. , et al. Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (16) 1556-1564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sarkar U, López A, Maselli JH, Gonzales R. Adverse drug events in U.S. adult ambulatory medical care. Health Serv Res 2011; 46 (05) 1517-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Taché SV, Sönnichsen A, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence of adverse drug events in ambulatory care: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother 2011; 45 (7–8): 977-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Panesar SS, deSilva D, Carson-Stevens A. , et al. How safe is primary care? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 (07) 544-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Thomsen LA, Winterstein AG, Søndergaard B, Haugbølle LS, Melander A. Systematic review of the incidence and characteristics of preventable adverse drug events in ambulatory care. Ann Pharmacother 2007; 41 (09) 1411-1426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ranji SR, Rennke S, Wachter RM. Computerised provider order entry combined with clinical decision support systems to improve medication safety: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (09) 773-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (05) 585-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A. , et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293 (10) 1197-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra RH, Guappone K, Carpenter JD, Seshadri V. Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76 (Suppl. 01) S21-S27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Health information technology adverse event reporting analysis of two databases. Washington, DC: 2014. . Available at: https://www.ecri.org/resource-center/center-for-health-it-safety-and-innovation . Accessed April 17, 2019
  • 11 Schiff GD, Amato MG, Eguale T. , et al. Computerised physician order entry-related medication errors: analysis of reported errors and vulnerability testing of current systems. BMJ Qual Saf 2015; 24 (04) 264-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schiff GD, Hickman TT, Volk LA, Bates DW, Wright A. Computerised prescribing for safer medication ordering: still a work in progress. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 (05) 315-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brown CL, Mulcaster HL, Triffitt KL. , et al. A systematic review of the types and causes of prescribing errors generated from using computerized provider order entry systems in primary and secondary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 432-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Amato MG, Salazar A, Hickman TT. , et al. Computerized prescriber order entry-related patient safety reports: analysis of 2522 medication errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 316-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Allen AS, Sequist TD. Pharmacy dispensing of electronically discontinued medications. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (10) 700-705
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yang Y, Ward-Charlerie S, Kashyap N, DeMayo R, Agresta T, Green J. Analysis of medication therapy discontinuation orders in new electronic prescriptions and opportunities for implementing CancelRx. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (11) 1516-1523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Copi EJ, Kelley LR, Fisher KK. Evaluation of the frequency of dispensing electronically discontinued medications and associated outcomes. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2018; 58 (4S): S46-S50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Computerized prescriber order entry medication safety (CPOEMS): Uncovering and learning from issues and errors. Sliver Spring, MD: 2015. . Available at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/medication-errors-related-cder-regulated-drug-products/computerized-prescriber-order-entry-medication-safety-cpoems . Accessed April 17, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Lourenco LM, Bursua A, Groo VL. Automatic errors: a case series on the errors inherent in electronic prescribing. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31 (07) 808-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schiff G, Mirica MM, Dhavle AA, Galanter WL, Lambert B, Wright A. A prescription for enhancing electronic prescribing safety. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37 (11) 1877-1883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fischer S, Rose A. Responsible e-prescribing needs e-discontinuation. JAMA 2017; 317 (05) 469-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pitts SI, Maruthur NM, Luu NP. , et al. Implementing the comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) to improve patient safety in an academic primary care practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2017; 43 (11) 591-597
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The CUSP Method. Secondary The CUSP Method March 2018 2012 . Available at: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/cusptoolkit/index.html . Accessed April 17, 2019
    PubMed
  • 24 Institute for Safe Medical Practices. ISMP list of high-alert medications in community/ambulatory healthcare. Secondary ISMP list of high-alert medications in community/ambulatory healthcare 2011 . Available at: https://www.ismp.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-11/highAlert-community.pdf . Accessed April 17, 2019
    PubMed
  • 25 Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP. , et al. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics 2013; 56 (11) 1669-1686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT. , et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15 (Suppl. 01) i50-i58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Institute of Medicine. Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Safer guides: secondary safer guides. April 4, 2018 . Available at: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/safety/safer-guides . Accessed April 17, 2019
    PubMed
  • 29 Walker JM, Carayon P, Leveson N. , et al. EHR safety: the way forward to safe and effective systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (03) 272-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wright A, Aaron S, Sittig DF. Testing electronic health records in the “production” environment: an essential step in the journey to a safe and effective health care system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (01) 188-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sittig DF, Singh H. Eight rights of safe electronic health record use. JAMA 2009; 302 (10) 1111-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sittig DF, Classen DC. Safe electronic health record use requires a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. JAMA 2010; 303 (05) 450-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004; 82 (04) 581-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Schiff GD, Seoane-Vazquez E, Wright A. Incorporating indications into medication ordering--time to enter the age of reason. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (04) 306-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kron K, Myers S, Volk L. , et al. Incorporating medication indications into the prescribing process. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018; 75 (11) 774-783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Surescripts. RxChange FAQs, 2016 . Available at: https://surescripts.com/docs/default-source/PressRelease-Library/rxchange-faqs.pdf . Accessed April 17, 2019
    PubMed
  • 37 Epic Systems Corporation. About us. 2018 . Available at: https://www.epic.com/about . Accessed April 17, 2019
    PubMed