Cited by 106Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 25 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Prescription Errors and Outcomes Related to Inconsistent Information Transmitted Through Computerized Order Entry: A Prospective Study

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although several types of computerized provider order entry (CPOE)-related errors may occur, errors related to inconsistent information within the same prescription (ie, mismatch between the structured template and the associated free-text field) have not been described, to our knowledge. We determined the nature and frequency of such errors and identified their potential predictive variables. METHODS: In this prospective study, we enrolled pharmacists to report prescriptions containing inconsistent communication over a 4-month period at a tertiary care facility. We also electronically retrieved all prescriptions written during the study period containing any comments in the free-text field and then randomly selected 500 for manual review to determine inconsistencies between free-text and structured fields. Of these, prescriptions without inconsistencies were categorized as controls. Data on potentially predictive variables from reported and unreported errors and controls were collected. For all inconsistencies, we determined their nature (eg, drug dosage or administration schedule) and potential harm and used multivariate logistic regression models to identify factors associated with errors and harm. RESULTS: Of 55 992 new prescriptions, 532 (0.95%) were reported to contain inconsistent communication, a rate comparable to that obtained from the unreported group. Drug dosage was the most common inconsistent element among both groups. Certain medications were more likely associated with errors, as was the inpatient setting (odds ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.18-5.00) and surgical subspecialty (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-3.82). About 20% of errors could have resulted in moderate to severe harm, for which significant independent predictors were found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite standardization of data entry, inconsistent communication in CPOE poses a significant risk to safety. Improving the usability of the CPOE interface and integrating it with workflow may reduce this risk.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.102

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 25 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
27 of 27
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Order entry errors related to inconsistent information within the same prescription had not been described before this study.

    “To our knowledge, order entry errors related to inconsistent information within the same prescription have not been described.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This is the first study reporting errors of communication due to free-text comments in CPOE systems.

    “To our knowledge, this is also the first study reporting errors of communication due to free-text comments in CPOE systems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All CPOE systems have some method of entering free text.

    “All CPOE systems have some method of entering free text.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Underreporting is a well-recognized phenomenon in similar studies.

    “Because underreporting is a well recognized phenomenon in similar studies”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Free-text comments are printed on the label of the dispensed medication.

    “the free-text comments are printed on the label of the dispensed medication”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The advanced CPOE system used in the study is fairly representative of other CPOE systems.

    “an advanced CPOE system fairly representative of other systems”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 29 references

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations Sentinel event statistics, March 31, 2006 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations 2005 Available at: URL: http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/FA465646-5F5F-4543-AC8F-E8AF6571E372/0/root_cause_se.jpg 17139928
  2. [26]Schoeffel R The concept of product usability ISO Bulletin 34[3], 6–7 2003 Ref Type: Generic

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 106

Metadata

Authors
Singh, H., Mani, S., Espadas, D., Petersen, N., Franklin, V., & Petersen, L. A.
Affiliations
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2009-05-25
Volume
169
Issue
10
Pages
982
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077178507
Cited by
104
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
25.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
computerized physician order entry, prescribing errors, data inconsistency, structured templates, medication errors, drug dosage errors, inpatient prescriptions, surgical subspecialties, drug safety
MeSH terms
Group Practice, Humans, Medication Errors, Drug Prescriptions, Prospective Studies, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Clinical Pharmacy Information Systems, Medical Order Entry Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review