ReviewIntegrated pharmacy research & practice2015
Causes and consequences of e-prescribing errors in community pharmacies.
Review in Integrated pharmacy research & practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in dispensing errors reported in Finnish community pharmacies in 2015-2020: a national retrospective register-based study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- CancelRx case study: implications for clinic and community pharmacy work systems.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- An observational study of the cause and frequency of prescription rework in community pharmacies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Observational
- Quality of prescription writing in Brazilian primary health care.Primary health care research & development · 2023Observational
- A Study to Assess Prescription Transfer and Medicines Collection Through a New Electronic Prescription Service: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of CancelRx on discontinuation of controlled substance prescriptions: an interrupted time series analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Nature and frequency of prescription modifications in community pharmacies: A nationwide study in the Netherlands.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Doctors' Perceptions of E-Prescribing upon Its Mandatory Adoption in Poland, Using theHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major national policy forces are promoting the adoption and use of health information technology (health IT) to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care delivery. One such health IT is electronic prescribing (e-prescribing), which is the direct transmission of prescription information from a provider to a pharmacy. Given research showing that handwritten prescriptions are unsafe and associated errors can lead to tremendous inefficiency for patients and pharmacists, e-prescribing has many potential benefits. However, as with the introduction of any new technology, unintended, adverse consequences may result. The purpose of this review is to explore the causes and consequences of e-prescribing errors in community pharmacies, which are pharmacies not affiliated with a hospital or clinic. Many new types of errors - including provider order entry errors, transcription errors, and dispensing errors - appear to result from e-prescribing. These lead to important consequences for pharmacies, including safety threats to patients, reduced efficiency for pharmacists, processing delays, and increased pharmacy cost. Increased attention to system design and pharmacist training, as well as additional research in this area, will be critical to realize the full benefits of e-prescribing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.