Gates Peter J, Hardie Rae-Anne, Raban Magdalena Z, Li Ling, Westbrook Johanna I
Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Jan 15;28(1):167-176. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa230.
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess: 1) changes in medication error rates and associated patient harm following electronic medication system (EMS) implementation; and 2) evidence of system-related medication errors facilitated by the use of an EMS.
We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2005 and March 2019, comparing medication errors rates with or without assessments of related harm (actual or potential) before and after EMS implementation. EMS was defined as a computer-based system enabling the prescribing, supply, and/or administration of medicines. Study quality was assessed.
There was substantial heterogeneity in outcomes of the 18 included studies. Only 2 were strong quality. Meta-analysis of 5 studies reporting change in actual harm post-EMS showed no reduced risk (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.18-8.38, P = .8) and meta-analysis of 3 studies reporting change in administration errors found a significant reduction in error rates (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.72-0.83, P = .004). Of 10 studies of prescribing error rates, 9 reported a reduction but variable denominators precluded meta-analysis. Twelve studies provided specific examples of system-related medication errors; 5 quantified their occurrence.
Despite the wide-scale adoption of EMS in hospitals around the world, the quality of evidence about their effectiveness in medication error and associated harm reduction is variable. Some confidence can be placed in the ability of systems to reduce prescribing error rates. However, much is still unknown about mechanisms which may be most effective in improving medication safety and design features which facilitate new error risks.
进行一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估:1)电子药物系统(EMS)实施后用药错误率的变化及相关患者伤害;2)使用EMS导致的与系统相关用药错误的证据。
我们检索了Medline、Scopus、Embase和CINAHL,查找2005年1月至2019年3月发表的研究,比较EMS实施前后用药错误率以及是否评估相关伤害(实际或潜在)。EMS被定义为一种基于计算机的系统,可实现药物的处方、供应和/或给药。评估了研究质量。
纳入的18项研究结果存在很大异质性。只有2项质量较高。对5项报告EMS实施后实际伤害变化的研究进行荟萃分析,结果显示风险未降低(风险比:1.22,95%置信区间:0.18 - 8.38,P = 0.8);对3项报告给药错误变化的研究进行荟萃分析,发现错误率显著降低(风险比:0.77,95%置信区间:0.72 - 0.83,P = 0.004)。在10项关于处方错误率的研究中,9项报告错误率降低,但分母不同使得无法进行荟萃分析。12项研究提供了与系统相关用药错误的具体例子;5项对其发生率进行了量化。
尽管EMS在全球医院中广泛采用,但关于其在减少用药错误及相关伤害方面有效性的证据质量参差不齐。对于系统降低处方错误率的能力可以有一定信心。然而,对于可能最有效改善用药安全的机制以及促成新错误风险的设计特征,仍有许多未知之处。