Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Issue Of Health IT Safety Seems To Be Getting More and More Coverage. A Good Thing I Think.
This appeared a little while ago.
By Kevin B. O'Reilly, amednews staff. Posted Feb. 25, 2013.
In spring 2012, a surgeon tried to electronically access a patient’s radiology study in the operating room but the computer would show only a blue screen. The patient’s time under anesthesia was extended while OR staff struggled to get the display to function properly.
That is just one example of 171 health information technology-related problems reported during a nine-week period to the ECRI Institute PSO, a patient safety organization in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that works with health systems and hospital associations in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and elsewhere to analyze and prevent adverse events.
Eight of the incidents reported involved patient harm, and three may have contributed to patient deaths, said the institute’s 48-page report, first made privately available to the PSO’s members and partners in December 2012. The report, shared with American Medical News in February, highlights how the health IT systems meant to make care safer and more efficient can sometimes expose patients to harm.
The institute’s report did not rate whether electronic systems were any less safe than the paper records they replaced. The report is intended to alert hospitals and health systems to the unintended consequences of electronic health records.
The leading cause of problems was general malfunctions, responsible for 29% of incidents. For example, following a consultation about a patient’s wounds, a nurse at one hospital tried to enter instructions in the electronic record, but the system would not allow the nurse to type more than five characters in the comment field. Other times, medication label scanning functions failed, or an error message was incorrectly displayed every time a particular drug was ordered. One system failed to issue an alert when a pregnancy test was ordered for a male patient.
A quarter of incidents were related to data output problems, such as retrieving the wrong patient record because the system does not ask the user to validate the patient identity before proceeding. This kind of problem led to incorrect medication orders and in one case an unnecessary chest x-ray. Twenty-four percent of incidents were linked to data-input mistakes. For example, one nurse recorded blood glucose results for the wrong patient due to typing the incorrect patient identification number to access the record.
Most of remaining event reports were related to data-transfer failures, such as a case where a physician’s order to stop anticoagulant medication did not properly transfer to the pharmacy system. The patient received eight extra doses of the medication before it was stopped.
It is not enough for physicians and other health care leaders to shop carefully for IT systems, the report said. Ensuring that systems such as computerized physician order entry and electronic health records work safely has to be a continuing concern, said Karen P. Zimmer, MD, MPH, medical director of the ECRI Institute PSO.
“Minimizing the unintended consequences of health IT systems and maximizing the potential of health IT to improve patient safety should be an ongoing focus of every health care organization,” she said.
The report recommends that hospitals and clinics conduct extensive tests before using a new electronic system in patient care. They also should incorporate interfaces designed to prevent errors. For example, an interface should not allow alphabetic characters in numeric entry fields. To prevent wrong-record retrievals, systems should require validation of a patient’s identity, such as the patient’s initials, gender and age, before the electronic record is opened.
The institute’s findings are just the latest to draw attention to the safety problems posed by health IT systems, such as EHRs. A December 2012 Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority study found that the number of EHR-related adverse events reported to the authority doubled in just one year, from 555 in 2010 to 1,142 in 2011. A study in February’s Critical Care Medicine showed that three-quarters of physicians’ progress notes for intensive care patients were copy-and-pasted, a practice dubbed “sloppy and paste” that experts say can lead to mistakes in care.
Lots more here:
This article reports a very important study that reveals that when considering the overall Health IT cost/benefit framework we need to consider both the safety of the technology as well as considering whether the Health IT actually works.
Another take on all this can be found here:
This post review the good claimed from CPOE as well as the potential harm that may be noticed.
Well worth a read. All this is making it quite difficult to find clarity - with a firm evidence base - anywhere. More work and better studies are clearly needed.
To quote the end of the blog from Scot Silverstein:
“Thus, I agree with the author's conclusion (especially in view of the recent and direct-reporting ECRI PSO study) that "future research in this area will be critically important to inform policy and funding decisions regarding the development and implementation of CPOE in care delivery."
From a clinical perspective, "primum non nocere" and the avoidance of gambling billions of dollars applies, at least until a better understanding of the technology's risk/benefit ratio and how to improve it occurs.
A fraction of those billions would pay for more robust, current studies on the scale needed to get closer to the truth.”
Posted by Dr David G More MB PhD at Thursday, March 14, 2013