Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés M, Delgado Silveira E, Pérez Menéndez-Conde C, Bermejo Vicedo T
Servicio de Farmacia, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España.
Farm Hosp. 2011 May-Jun;35(3):135-9. doi: 10.1016/j.farma.2010.05.004. Epub 2010 Nov 11.
To detect, quantify, and compare the medication error produced with manual versus electronically assisted prescription systems.
A descriptive, observational, prospective study in two traumatology hospitalisation units; one with manual prescriptions and the other with electronically assisted prescriptions. Prescription errors were determined.
We analysed 1,536 lines of treatment (393 treatment forms) from 164 patients. With manual prescriptions, we detected errors in 19.54% of cases, compared to 9.4% in electronically assisted prescriptions. Omission errors were significantly lower with electronically assisted prescriptions, especially with drugs that act upon the central nervous system.
Prescription error has decreased by 53% since computerising the prescription process. This is particularly useful for omission errors, as prescription is more complete. The decrease in error regarding drugs that act on the central nervous system stands out.
检测、量化并比较手动处方系统与电子辅助处方系统产生的用药错误。
在两个创伤科住院单元进行一项描述性、观察性、前瞻性研究；一个单元采用手动处方，另一个单元采用电子辅助处方。确定处方错误情况。
我们分析了164例患者的1536行治疗记录（393份治疗表单）。手动处方时，我们检测到19.54%的病例存在错误，而电子辅助处方时这一比例为9.4%。电子辅助处方时遗漏错误显著更低，尤其是对于作用于中枢神经系统的药物。
自处方流程计算机化以来，处方错误减少了53%。这对于遗漏错误尤其有用，因为处方更完整。作用于中枢神经系统药物的错误减少尤为突出。
