Higher accuracy of complex medication reconciliation through improved design of electronic tools.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the accuracy of 2 different medication reconciliation tools integrated into electronic health record systems (EHRs) using a cognitively demanding scenario and complex medication history.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen physicians reconciled medication lists for a polypharmacy patient using 2 EHRs in a simulation study. The lists contained 3 types of discrepancy and were transmitted between the systems via a Continuity of Care Document. Participants updated each EHR and their interactions were recorded and analyzed for the number and type of errors.

RESULTS

Participants made 748 drug comparisons that resulted in 53 errors (93% accuracy): 12 using EHR2 (3% rate, 0-3 range) and 41 using EHR1 (11% rate, 0-9 range; P < .0001). Twelve clinicians made completely accurate reconciliations with EHR2 (71%) and 6 with EHR1 (35%). Most errors (28, 53%) occurred in medication entries containing discrepancies: 4 in EHR2 and 24 in EHR1 (P = .008). The order in which participants used the EHRs to complete the task did not affect the results.

DISCUSSION

Significantly fewer errors were made with EHR2, which presented lists in a side-by-side view, automatically grouped medications by therapeutic class and more effectively identified duplicates. Participants favored this design and indicated that they routinely used several workarounds in EHR1.

CONCLUSION

Accurate assessment of the safety and effectiveness of electronic reconciliation tools requires rigorous testing and should prioritize complex rather than simpler tasks that are currently used for EHR certification and product demonstration. Higher accuracy of reconciliation is likely when tools are designed to better support cognitively demanding tasks.