Characteristics of pharmacist's interventions triggered by prescribing errors related to computerised physician order entry in French hospitals: a cross-sectional observational study

[Translation and adaptation of a tool prescribing errors related to computerized physician order entry coding to the French hospital background]

Prescribing errors related to computerized physician order entry are current and may have serious consequences for patients. They can be detected by pharmacists during prescriptions analysis and lead to pharmacist's interventions. In France, few monocentric studies have studied Pharmacist Interventions triggered by prescribing errors identified as System-Related Errors (PISREs) in French hospitals. However, their respective analysis method prevent any comparison between computerized physician order entry systems in order to identify the safest and rule out the most dangerous. A computerized physician prescribing error related to the software is characterized by its causes, consequences and mechanism of occurrence. US researchers have developed and validated a tool to classify and illustrate these three characteristics. The objectives of this article are to present this tool, to propose a French adaptation and to describe the perspectives analyze and understand prescription errors related to computerized physician order entry based on data of Act-IP©. The adaptation was performed using PISREs extracted from the Act-IP© observatory of the French Society of Clinical Pharmacy. Each item of the codification is illustrated with an example of PI. We are considering a training plan in order to allow wide use of this tool. Once adopted this tool, the next step will be to organize a prospective multicenter study including as many computerized prescription order entry systems as possible. The aim of this study will be identifying the safest systems. Consequently, it will then be possible to have arguments to qualify the most dangerous and thus propose their withdrawal from the market.

Acceptance Factors for In-Hospital Pharmacist Interventions in Daily Practice: A Retrospective Study

Introduction: Performing pharmacist interventions (PIs) during the medication review helps to improve the quality of care. The acceptance by the physician of these PIs is a good indicator of the quality of this clinical pharmacy activity. The objective of this study was to determine, in the Amiens-Picardie teaching hospital (France), factors of acceptance in a variable environment of activity (central pharmacy, in the care units, computer assisted). Methods: All PIs transcribed by pharmacists on the Act-IP© site between November 2018 and April 2019 were analyzed using a complementary search in patient records. The environment, type, and clinical impact on patient health of each PI was collected. Linear mixed-effects models with a random pharmacist intercept were used to investigate the relationship between PI modalities and their chance of being accepted. Results: A total of 3,100 PIs were traced, of which 2,930 had been followed over time. Of these, 2,930 PIs, 1,504 (51.3%) were performed by a postgraduate pharmacist and 1,426 (48.7%) by a pharmacy resident, 1,623 (55.4%) were performed by verbal exchange, 455 (15.5%) by telephone, 846 (28.9%) by computer software, and 6 (0.2%) by paper. The clinical impact on patient health was major for 976 PIs (33.3%) and vital for 26 PIs (0.9%). According to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC), they were mainly related to anti-infectives (30.3%), the nervous system (18.7%), and blood and blood-forming organs (17.3%). In total, 2,415 PIs (82.4%) were accepted. According to the multivariate model, a PI was more often accepted when it was transmitted orally rather than by software (+27.7%, 95% CI: +23.2 to +32.1%) and when it was transmitted to a medical resident rather than a postgraduate physician (+4.4%, 95% CI: 1.2-7.6%). In these cases, there was a major rather than a moderate clinical impact on patient health (+4.3%, 95% CI: +1.1-+7.6%). Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of the quality of the exchange with the prescriber and the prioritization of high-risk interventions as key points of medication review to improve rate of pharmacist interventions accepted by physician.