Cited by 370Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsElectronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Improving Patient Safety by Identifying Side Effects from Introducing Bar Coding in Medication Administration

Open access
Patterson, E. S., Cook, R. I., Render, M. L.·2002·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In addition to providing new capabilities, the introduction of technology in complex, sociotechnical systems, such as health care and aviation, can have unanticipated side effects on technical, social, and organizational dimensions. To identify potential accidents in the making, the authors looked for side effects from a natural experiment, the implementation of bar code medication administration (BCMA), a technology designed to reduce adverse drug events (ADEs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study of medication passes before (21 hours of observation of 7 nurses at 1 hospital) and after (60 hours of observation of 26 nurses at 3 hospitals) BCMA implementation. MEASUREMENTS: Detailed, handwritten field notes of targeted ethnographic observations of in situ nurse-BCMA interactions were iteratively analyzed using process tracing and five conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: Ethnographic observations distilled into 67 nurse-BCMA interactions were classified into 12 categories. We identified five negative side effects after BCMA implementation: (1) nurses confused by automated removal of medications by BCMA, (2) degraded coordination between nurses and physicians, (3) nurses dropping activities to reduce workload during busy periods, (4) increased prioritization of monitored activities during goal conflicts, and (5) decreased ability to deviate from routine sequences. CONCLUSION: These side effects might create new paths to ADEs. We recommend design revisions, modification of organizational policies, and "best practices" training that could potentially minimize or eliminate these side effects before they contribute to adverse outcomes.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1061

Cites

36 of 36 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?

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: 13

  1. [18]18. Malcolm B, Carlson RA, Tucker CL, Willette C. Veteran's Affairs: Eliminating medication errors through point-of-care devices. Technical paper for 2000 Annual HIMSS Conference, 2000.
  2. [19]19. Anderson S, Jensen R. Management Case Study: A multidisciplinary approach to decreasing the occurrence of medication errors and variances. Presented at the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists Mid-Year Clinical Symposium, 2000.
  3. [20]20. Roth EM, Patterson ES, Mumaw RJ. Cognitive engineering: Issues in user-centered system design. In Marciniak J (ed): Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd ed. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
  4. [21]21. Klein GA. Recognition-primed decisions. In Rouse WB (ed), Advances in Man-Machine Systems Research. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 1989, pp 47-92.
  5. [23]23. Sarter NB, Woods DD, Billings CE. Automation surprises. In G. Salvendy (ed): Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd ed. New York, Wiley, 1997, pp 1926-43.
  6. [29]29. Heath C, Luff P. Technology in Action. Cambridge:, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  7. [36]36. Woods DD, Shattuck LG. Distant supervision-local action given the potential for surprise Cogni Technol Work. 2000; 2:86-96.
  8. [38]38. Heath C, Luff P. Technology in Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  9. [39]39. Sarter NB, Woods DD, Billings CE. Automation surprises. In Salvendy G (ed): Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd ed. New York, Wiley, 1997;1926-43.
  10. [42]42. Puckett F. Medication-management component of a point-ofcare information system. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1995; 52:1305-09.
  11. [45]45. Ebright PL, Patterson ES, Chalko B, Render ML. Identification of environmental factors that increase complexity in acute care settings. Proceedings of the Midwest Nursing Research Society 2002 Annual Research Conference, March 1-4, 2002, Chicago, p 148.
  12. [46]46. Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, et al. Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001; 8(4):299-308.
  13. [49]49. Murff HJ, Kannry J. Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:499-511.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patterson, E. S., Cook, R. I., & Render, M. L.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2002-09-01
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
540-553
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2160172018
Cited by
370
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 21
FWCI
31.61
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)
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 › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
barcode medication administration, adverse drug reactions, patient safety, nursing workload, goal conflict, socio-technical systems, medication administration
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Forms and Records Control, Humans, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, User-Computer Interface, Clinical Pharmacy Information Systems, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Point-of-Care Systems, 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