Observational studyBMJ quality & safety2019
Automated detection of wrong-drug prescribing errors.
Observational study in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. 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.
- A framework for developing, validating, and utilizing automated measures of order errors using the retract-and-reorder methodology.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Examining medication ordering errors using AHRQ network of patient safety databases.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Observational
- Using automated methods to detect safety problems with health information technology: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Conceptual considerations for using EHR-based activity logs to measure clinician burnout and its effects.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the specificity of an algorithm designed to detect look-alike/sound-alike (LASA) medication prescribing errors in electronic health record (EHR) data.
settingUrban, academic medical centre, comprising a 495-bed hospital and outpatient clinic running on the Cerner EHR. We extracted 8 years of medication orders and diagnostic claims. We licensed a database of medication indications, refined it and merged it with the medication data. We developed an algorithm that triggered for LASA errors based on name similarity, the frequency with which a patient received a medication and whether the medication was justified by a diagnostic claim. We stratified triggers by similarity. Two clinicians reviewed a sample of charts for the presence of a true error, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We computed specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and yield.
resultsThe algorithm analysed 488 481 orders and generated 2404 triggers (0.5% rate). Clinicians reviewed 506 cases and confirmed the presence of 61 errors, for an overall PPV of 12.1% (95% CI 10.7% to 13.5%). It was not possible to measure sensitivity or the false-negative rate. The specificity of the algorithm varied as a function of name similarity and whether the intended and dispensed drugs shared the same route of administration.
conclusionAutomated detection of LASA medication errors is feasible and can reveal errors not currently detected by other means. Real-time error detection is not possible with the current system, the main barrier being the real-time availability of accurate diagnostic information. Further development should replicate this analysis in other health systems and on a larger set of medications and should decrease clinician time spent reviewing false-positive triggers by increasing specificity.
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.