Cited by 1,260Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsElectronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The Impact of Computerized Physician Order Entry on Medication Error Prevention

Open access
Bates, D. W., Teich, J. M., Lee, J., Seger, D., Kuperman, G. J., Ma'Luf, N., Boyle, D., Leape, L.·1999·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are common, and while most such errors have little potential for harm they cause substantial extra work in hospitals. A small proportion do have the potential to cause injury, and some cause preventable adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of computerized physician order entry (POE) with decision support in reducing the number of medication errors. DESIGN: Prospective time series analysis, with four periods. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to three medical units were studied for seven to ten-week periods in four different years. The baseline period was before implementation of POE, and the remaining three were after. Sophistication of POE increased with each successive period. INTERVENTION: Physician order entry with decision support features such as drug allergy and drug-drug interaction warnings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Medication errors, excluding missed dose errors. RESULTS: During the study, the non-missed-dose medication error rate fell 81 percent, from 142 per 1,000 patient-days in the baseline period to 26.6 per 1,000 patient-days in the final period (P < 0.0001). Non-intercepted serious medication errors (those with the potential to cause injury) fell 86 percent from baseline to period 3, the final period (P = 0.0003). Large differences were seen for all main types of medication errors: dose errors, frequency errors, route errors, substitution errors, and allergies. For example, in the baseline period there were ten allergy errors, but only two in the following three periods combined (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Computerized POE substantially decreased the rate of non-missed-dose medication errors. A major reduction in errors was achieved with the initial version of the system, and further reductions were found with addition of decision support features.

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/jamia.1999.00660313

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Teich JM, Glaser JP, Beckley RF, et al. Toward cost-effective, quality care; the Brigham Integrated Computing System. Proc 2nd Nicholas E. Davies CPR Recognition Symposium. 1996:3.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bates, D. W., Teich, J. M., Lee, J., Seger, D., Kuperman, G. J., Ma'Luf, N., Boyle, D., & Leape, L.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Bates, D. W.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
1999-07-01
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
313-321
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2142997978
Cited by
1,260
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 80
FWCI
49.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
computerized physician order entry, medication errors, clinical decision support, adverse drug reactions, dosing errors, substitution errors
MeSH terms
Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Massachusetts, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, User-Computer Interface, Clinical Pharmacy Information Systems, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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