4.4 Article

The effect of a computerized pediatric dosing decision support system on pediatric dosing errors

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD AND DRUG ANALYSIS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 286-291

出版社

FOOD & DRUG ADMINSTRATION
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2013.07.006

关键词

Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE); Medication safety; Pediatric dose; Pediatrics

资金

  1. Taipei Medical University-Wanfang Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan [100-wf-eva-23]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Children are more susceptible to medication errors because of differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics compared to adults. Weight changes are common with growth in children and computer systems frequently are not updated with current information, which result in inaccurate weight-based dosing and thus harm children. This study evaluated the impact of a Computerized Physician Order Entry system with standardized pediatric dosing decision support (PDDS) function on reducing pediatric dosing errors. Outpatient prescriptions were analyzed from January to March during 2010 and 2011. The total number of pediatric prescriptions was 72,431 and 80,532 prior to and after system implementation, respectively. Out of 72,431 prescriptions, 1617 (2.23%) dosing errors were retrospectively detected by the system, whereas 15 dosing errors (0.02%) were detected by pharmacists prior to system implementation. Incorporating the system into practice resulted in a total of 210 successfully blocked dosing near misses, including 14 potentially fatal and 11 serious near misses. The final dosing error rate was significantly reduced from 2.23% to 0.66% ( p < 0.001). A 10-fold increase of the near miss correction rate (0.02% vs. 0.26%, p < 0.001) was observed. The Computerized Physician Order Entry system with standardized pediatric dosing decision support system provided real-time warning and significantly decreased the dose error rate among pediatric patients. Copyright (C) 2013, Food and Drug Administration, Taiwan. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据