Posted on 12/21/2004 10:31:27 AM PST by neverdem
Report: Computers Can Add to Errors
Computer systems designed to prevent medication errors in hospitals can actually contribute to mistakes, according to a new report.
As more hospitals have implemented automated systems for administering drugs, the number of errors associated with them has risen, according to an annual report on medication errors released yesterday by the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP), a nonprofit group that sets standards for the drug industry.
"It would seem logical that applying computer technology to the medication use process would have a significant positive impact in preventing medication errors," said Diane Cousins, vice president of USP's Center for the Advancement of Patient Safety. "Yet, depending on the computer's design or user competence, new points of potential errors can emerge."
The findings should help hospitals that have adopted the systems find ways to reduce errors, and those considering such systems to implement them more safely, Cousins said. As the technology matures, the number of errors is likely to decrease and the technology should eventually make hospital care overall safer, she said.
Many hospitals have been adopting computerized systems for administering drugs to patients in an attempt to reduce errors, especially since a landmark 1999 Institute of Medicine report estimated that between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year from medical errors of all kinds.
USP has been collecting medication error data from hospitals on a voluntary basis for the past five years. In the latest data, 570 hospitals and other kinds of health care facilities reported 235,159 medication errors that occurred in 2003. Of those, about 20 percent -- or about 43,000 -- involved some kind of automated drug administration system. The group did not have a comparable number from previous reports because it added new categories for computerized medication systems this year, but there was a...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If these are automated drug delivery systems, shouldn't the programmers bear personal responsibility for developing software that has errors that can kill people? We've all had our frustrations with computer glitches, but if someone's life is in the balance, shouldn't the people that created those errors be the ones to blame? Computers only do what they are told. The programmers need to step up to the plate and be responsible for their software.
Well, the programmers only code to the specs. They don't have the expertise to tell the users how to run their business processes.
That's a good point. Perhaps the people who set the specs should be the ones involved with the programming. To me, a crashed computer is an annoyance and a big one if it happens in the middle of something critical. But when peoples lives are in the balance, the software needs to be not only flawless, but must do what we humans want it to do and not the logic errors that get programmed into it. If a health care provider administers the wrong medication and a patient is harmed, that eprson is held liable. If a machine makes the same mistake, the people responsible for instructing that machine bear responsibility. That would be the programmers and the designers. A programmer unfamiliar with the end application needs to learn more before writing the software. In other words, the people thaqt set up these systems should be, in my opinion, double experts.
I'm a nursing student, and we have the Pixys system at our hospital. I don't think the errors actually occur because of the computerized system, they're more human error. You call up a patient on the screen, select which medications you want to give, and then drawers pop open and the screen tells you which "cubbyhole" to take the medication out of.
Of course, the system is only as good as the person removing the medications and filling the cubbyholes. As students, we take the Medication Adminstration Record to the computer, pull out our meds, double check drug name and dosage, match them up with the MAR sheet, and then check the patient's name band and double check the medications one more time before giving them.
Of course, we nursing students have only one patient to give meds to and our instructors are hovering over us every step of the way, but I can imagine a busy nurse with a number of patients making errors by not doing the triple-check they are SUPPOSED to do.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Naah, let's just outsource it to India, to save money. (sarcasm)
What system proofread "thaqt" line of yours, anyway? ;-)
Automated or not, all medical professionals should check and double check drug dispensation the old fashioned way.
Technology can be a good thing as long as it doesn't run out of control. Too many people (in all professions) lack basic skills which they now assume a machine will perform for them. When the machines break down those individuals are lost. It really speaks to the competency of providers we have these days.
Aye. An ex-professor of mine recalled to me the days when calculators first made their appearance on campus.
He recalls seeing a number of students blindly typing in mathematical unit conversions including " x 1 =" followed by " (divided by) 1 =", without thinking... "
none - its called typing quickly on FR while at work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.