ArticleScientific reports2025
A simulation study to quantitatively assess the performance of electronic prescribing systems in English NHS Hospital Trusts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Initial Implementation of E-Prescribing: Evidence from Eastern Taiwan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prescribing errors are a source of preventable harm in healthcare, which may be mitigated using Electronic Prescribing (EP) systems. Anyone who routinely prescribes medication could benefit from digitally assisted automated checks to identify whether a prescription should potentially not be allowed (e.g. drug allergy). National Health Service (NHS) Trusts have implemented a range of EP systems; however, their performance has not hitherto been evaluated. We developed the web-based Electronic Prescribing Risk and Safety Evaluation (ePRaSE) tool, which comprises a bank of prescribing scenarios to evaluate the performance of EP systems. We solicited ePRaSE testing: 68 pharmacists from across 45 English NHS Trusts, utilising 13 different EP systems volunteered for the study. We found considerable variability in mitigation performance (systems correctly identifying risk of error when prescribing) across both NHS Trusts and EP systems. Moreover, we found that mitigation performance varied considerably across NHS Trusts using the same EP system, strongly suggesting there are opportunities to optimise performance within systems. The ePRaSE tool is effective in identifying variability in risk management between NHS Trusts and EP systems. Wider use of this tool may facilitate improvements in EP system configurations, thus minimising potential harm from prescribing errors.
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.