This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: M2359v1 14/6/756    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by FitzHenry, F. Articles by Miller, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by FitzHenry, F. Articles by Miller, R. A.

Medication Administration Discrepancies Persist Despite Electronic Ordering

^a Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), Nashville TN
^b Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), Nashville TN
^c Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), Nashville TN.

^_* Correspondence: Fern FitzHenry, PhD, VUMC, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 2525 West End Ave., Ste 800, Nashville, TN 37203 (Email: fern.fitzhenry{at}vanderbilt.edu).

Received for publication: 12/29/06; accepted for publication: 07/25/07.

Background: Up to 38% of inpatient medication errors occur at the administration stage. Although they reduce prescribing errors, computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems do not prevent administration errors or timing discrepancies. This study determined the degree to which CPOE medication orders matched actual dose administration times.

Methods: At a 658-bed academic hospital with CPOE but lacking electronic medication administration charting, authors randomly selected adult patients with eligible medication orders from historical 1999–2003 CPOE log files. Retrospective manual chart audits compared expected (from CPOE) and actual timing of medication administrations. Outcomes included: dose omissions, median lag times between ordered and charted administrations, unauthorized doses, wrong dose errors, and the rate of nurses’ medication schedule shifting.

Results: Dose omissions occurred in 756 of 6019 (12.6%) audited administration opportunities; only 313 of the omissions (5.2% of opportunities) were unexplained. Wrong doses and unexpected doses occurred for 0.1% and 0.7% of opportunities, respectively. Median lag from expected first dose to actual charted administration time was 27 minutes (IQR 0-127). Nursing staff shifted from ordered to alternate administration schedules for 10.7% of regularly scheduled recurring medication orders. Chart review identified reasons for dose omissions, delays, and dose shifting.

Conclusion: Inpatient CPOE orders are legible and conveyed electronically to nurses and the pharmacy. Nonetheless, ward-based medication administrations do not consistently occur as ordered. Medication administration discrepancies are likely to persist even after implementing CPOE and bar-coded medication administration unless recommended interventions are made to address issues such as determining the true urgency of medication administration, avoiding overlapping duplicative medication orders, and developing a safe means for shifting dosing schedules.