Cited by 253Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsElectronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Medication errors: a prospective cohort study of hand-written and computerised physician order entry in the intensive care unit

Open access
Shulman, Rob, Singer, Mervyn, Goldstone, John, Bellingan, Geoff·2005·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: The study aimed to compare the impact of computerised physician order entry (CPOE) without decision support with hand-written prescribing (HWP) on the frequency, type and outcome of medication errors (MEs) in the intensive care unit. Methods: Details of MEs were collected before, and at several time points after, the change from HWP to CPOE. The study was conducted in a London teaching hospital's 22-bedded general ICU. The sampling periods were 28 weeks before and 2, 10, 25 and 37 weeks after introduction of CPOE. The unit pharmacist prospectively recorded details of MEs and the total number of drugs prescribed daily during the data collection periods, during the course of his normal chart review. Results: The total proportion of MEs was significantly lower with CPOE (117 errors from 2429 prescriptions, 4.8%) than with HWP (69 errors from 1036 prescriptions, 6.7%) (p < 0.04). The proportion of errors reduced with time following the introduction of CPOE (p < 0.001). Two errors with CPOE led to patient harm requiring an increase in length of stay and, if administered, three prescriptions with CPOE could potentially have led to permanent harm or death. Differences in the types of error between systems were noted. There was a reduction in major/moderate patient outcomes with CPOE when non-intercepted and intercepted errors were combined (p = 0.01). The mean baseline APACHE II score did not differ significantly between the HWP and the CPOE periods (19.4 versus 20.0, respectively, p = 0.71). Conclusion: Introduction of CPOE was associated with a reduction in the proportion of MEs and an improvement in the overall patient outcome score (if intercepted errors were included). Moderate and major errors, however, remain a significant concern with CPOE.

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 · 10.1186/cc3793

Cites

28 of 28 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

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?

  • The health care literature shows that EHRs can contribute to safety incidents and patient harm.

    “Complicating matters, the health care literature documents the potential of EHRs to contribute to safety incidents and patient harm.1,23,30 -33”

    From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [33]

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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shulman, R., Singer, M., Goldstone, J., & Bellingan, G.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Shulman, Rob
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2005-08-08
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
R516-21
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144945593
Cited by
252
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 22
FWCI
18.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
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
medication errors, computerized physician order entry, intensive care unit, clinical decision support, patient harm, APACHE II score, drug safety
MeSH terms
Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Handwriting, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, Drug Prescriptions, Prospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Chi-Square Distribution, 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.

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