ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2016
Cognitive Errors in Reconciling Complex Medication Lists.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Formative Usability Testing Reduces Severe Blood Product Ordering Errors.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Process Mining and Ethnography Study of Medication Reconciliation Tasks.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2019Article
- Higher accuracy of complex medication reconciliation through improved design of electronic tools.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- In Search of Vital Signs: A Comparative Study of EHR Documentation.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discrepancies between multiple electronic versions of patient medication records contribute to adverse drug events. Regular reconciliation increases their accuracy but is often inadequately supported by EHRs. We evaluated two systems with conceptually different interface designs for their effectiveness in resolving discrepancies. Eleven clinicians reconciled a complex list of 16 medications using both EHRs in the same standardized scenario. Errors such as omissions to add or discontinue a drug or to update a dose were analyzed. Clinicians made three times as many errors working with an EHR with lists arranged in a single column than when using a system with side-by-side lists. Excessive cognitive effort and reliance on memory was likely a strong contributing factor for lower accuracy of reconciliation. As errors increase with task difficulty, evaluations of reconciliation tools need to focus on complex prescribing scenarios to accurately assess effectiveness, error rate and whether they reduce risk to patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28269860PMC5333269What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.