Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 483

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals

Open access
Bates, D. W·2000·BMJ

Abstract

Data continue to show that medication errors are frequent and that adverse drug events, or injuries due to drugs, occur more often than necessary.1–4 In fact, the frequency and consequences of iatrogenic injuries seems to dwarf the frequency of other types of injuries that have received more public attention, such as aeroplane and automobile crashes.2 A recent meta-analysis reported an overall incidence of 6.7% for serious adverse drug reactions (a term that excludes events associated with errors) in hospitals.4 Between 28% and 56% of adverse drug events are preventable. 3 5–7 Though the reasons this issue has received so little attention are complex, the reasons that medical injuries occur with some frequency are perhaps less so; medicine is more or less a cottage industry, with little standardisation and relatively few safeguards in comparison to, say, manufacturing. In fact, most of the systems in place in medicine were never formally designed, and this holds for the entire process of giving drugs. #### Summary points Although information technologies are widely used in hospitals, relatively few data are available regarding their impact on the safety of the process of giving drugs Exceptions are computerised physician order entry and computerised physician decision support, which have been found to improve drug safety Other innovations, including using robots to fill prescriptions, bar coding, automateddispensing devices, and computerisation of the medication administration record, though less studied, should all eventually reduce error rates The medication system of the future will include these and other technologies, all electronically linked Take, for example, the allergy detection process used in our hospital several years ago, which was similar to that used in most hospitals at the time. Physicians, medical students, and nurses all asked patients what their allergies were. This information was recorded at several sites in …

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.788

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 483

Metadata

Authors
Bates, D. W.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-03-18
Volume
320
Issue
7237
Pages
788-791
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134352738
Cited by
483
References
3
FWCI
39.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.788
The paper
Bates, D. W. (2000). Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.788

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.