Way back in our June 17, 2008 Patient Safety Tip of the Week
“Technology
Workarounds Defeat Safety Intent” we described how healthcare workers
employ workarounds that may make their work faster or easier but in doing so
they defeat the intent of technologies to prevent errors and ensure safe
patient care. In that column we focused on workarounds related to bedside
medication verification (barcoding)
systems.
Another common workaround is related primarily to the
automated dispensing cabinet (ADC). A recent Pennsylvania Patient Safety
Advisory reported on overrides
related to ADC’s (Grissinger
2015). Grissinger reviewed 583 events
reported to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System over a 2-year
period related to overrides. Though over three quarters of these reached the
patient, harm occurred in only 0.3% of cases. Grissinger
notes that 75% of overrides occurred with ADC’s, though overrides were also
noted during CPOE or pharmacist order entry (12%) or barcoding (7.5%).
The most common ADC override was unauthorized medications
(i.e. obtaining a medication for a patient without a prescribed order),
followed by wrong patient events and wrong dosage form events. Over 30% of the
unauthorized medication events involved high-alert medications. Of all the
medications involved, antibiotics and opioids headed the list but of the
high-alert medications, opioids, anticoagulants and insulin were most commonly
involved.
Interestingly, ADC overrides were more common on medical and
surgical units rather than ICU’s or the ER where you might expect more emergent
situations to make them more frequent. Patients age 65 and older appeared to be
disproportionately affected.
Grissinger notes that one critical
element of the safety protections bypassed particularly via the ADC overrides
is review by a pharmacist. He notes that most hospitals have lists of
medications for which overrides in ADC’s are allowable (so nurses may remove
drugs from the ADC for urgent situations). The logic is that certain drugs may
be urgently needed and cannot wait for pharmacist approval. But he notes that removal
of a drug from an ADC might be necessary under some conditions but not under
others. Yet such “lists” don’t differentiate those conditions. Virtually all
ADC’s today maintain “override logs”. These should be reviewed regularly for
appropriateness and medication errors should be reviewed against these override
logs as well.
What’s missing in the override logs is the reason for each
override. You’ve heard us say over and over that identification of workarounds
is important because there is virtually
always a reason staff are using workarounds (i.e. a system issue). Therefore,
review of the override logs is critical to identifying what circumstances are
leading to use of those overrides and what system problems might need to be
fixed.
Another common workaround getting lots of attention recently
is copying and pasting. Almost all
physicians copy and paste in the EMR, particularly when doing daily progress
notes on inpatients. That’s because the key elements in a daily progress note
are usually the same from day to day except that the data about each element
may differ. For example, a progress note about a patient with an infection
might begin with a comment about their maximum temperature (eg.
Tmax = 38.6º), followed by comments about
symptoms related to the infection, and results of lab or microbiology tests. So
it would be common to copy yesterday’s progress note, paste it under today’s
date and update the specific elements. But problems arise when a previous note
is simply copied and no update is performed.
The same applies to use of templates or macros in the EMR. One
account of the famous early case of Ebola in the US (Hawryluk
2016) notes that the ER physician used a template but failed to
update that template with the current patient temperature. Ebola was thus not
immediately considered and the patient was discharged.
Concerns about copy-and-paste issues began to appear in the
early days of EMR’s. Veterans Affairs facilities had some of the earliest EMR’s
and in 2003 Hammond and colleagues (Hammond 2003) reported
on the prevalence and dangers of copy-and-paste. They noted that 9% of progress
notes had some form of copied or duplicated text. While they noted most
instances were benign, they found that “high-risk author copying” occurred once
for every 720 notes, but one in ten electronic charts contained an instance of
high-risk copying. This included introduction of misleading errors into the EMR
that were potentially unsafe. They note how such errors then may get propagated
through the EMR.
In a seminal paper on the benefits and dangers of
copy-and-paste Weis and Levy (Weis
2014) pointed out that the issue is bigger than copy-and-paste and includes
macros, templates, automated data importation, “copy note forward”, and other
methods by which information might move from one place to another in the EMR.
They called these methods collectively “Content-Importing Technologies (CIT)”.
They noted that aside from the perceived efficiencies derived from use of CIT,
there were other potential benefits. For example, data entered into specific
fields through templates may help with clinical research and CIT might help
track specific problems longitudinally in a complex medical record. CIT might
also help with discharge summaries and discharge instructions.
But they then listed the potential dangers of CIT.
Medication and allergy lists that were not reviewed with patients and updated
could propagate errors. Symptoms or histories of present illness might
incorrectly be attributed to different times. And the use of macros and
templates for physical exams raised the question as to whether all elements of
the physical exams really had been performed. They also cite the study by Singh
and colleagues on diagnostic error in primary care (Singh
2013) that showed practitioners copied and pasted previous progress notes
into the index visit note in 7.4% of cases and, of these cases, copying and
pasting mistakes were determined to contribute to more than one-third (35.7%)
of errors.
Weis and Levy also note the legal and regulatory dangers of
CIT, noting that Medicare has stated it will be auditing for “cloned”
documentation that might represent fraud and abuse.
Our January 12, 2016
Patient Safety Tip of the Week “New
Resources on Improving Safety of Healthcare IT” cited an excellent
contribution on patient safety problems related to healthcare information
technology (IT) based on a review of malpractice claims (Graber
2015). One of the themes in the Graber study was that, largely because of cut-and-paste capabilities or ability
to pre-populate data, incorrect
information may be propagated in the medical record. For example, importing a
previous medication list might include medications the patient is no longer
taking. Or omission of a medication on a medication list may result in
continued omission of that medication in the future. They also emphasized the
well-known risks of overriding alerts and employing workarounds.
The problems related to “copy-and-paste” workarounds have
become so prominent that ECRI Institute, in conjunction with multiple other
patient safety organizations (Partnership for Health IT Patient Safety),
recently came out with a toolkit for safe use of copy and paste (ECRI
Institute 2016). This culminated in
four safe practice recommendations:
The toolkit also notes that many templates have been created
to prompt physicians to include elements needed to maximize billing. This (and
other reasons for CIT) has led to chart “bloating”
in which notes and other documentation lead to larger and larger medical records.
The Partnership toolkit is well referenced and has links to
excellent resources. It provides sample policies and procedures, audit tools,
education and training materials, checklists and good guidelines and action
plans for how organizations should go about implementing the above
recommendations.
Practices and organizations need to evaluate the workarounds
(in barcoding, overrides, copy-and-paste, and others) that are occurring and
potentially endangering patient care. They need to do risk assessments of such
practices and implement the tools provided in some of the above mentioned
resources.
See some of our other
Patient Safety Tip of the Week columns dealing with unintended consequences of
technology and other healthcare IT issues:
References:
Grissinger M. Medication Errors
Involving Overrides of Healthcare Technology. Pa Patient Saf
Advis 2015; 12(4): 141-148
http://www.patientsafetyauthority.org/ADVISORIES/AdvisoryLibrary/2015/Dec;12%284%29/Pages/141.aspx
Hawryluk M. Report highlights
errors caused by copying, pasting in medical records. Houston Chronicle 2016; March
12, 2016
Hammond KW, Helbig ST, Benson CC, Brathwaite-Sketoe BM. Are Electronic Medical Records Trustworthy?
Observations on Copying, Pasting and Duplication. AMIA Annu
Symp Proc 2003; 2003: 269-273
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480345/
Weis JM, Levy PC. Copy, Paste, and Cloned Notes in
Electronic Health Records: Prevalence, Benefits, Risks, and Best Practice
Recommendations. Chest 2014; 145(3): 632-638
http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleID=1833461
Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AND,
et al. Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings. JAMA
Intern Med 2013; 173(6): 418-425, published online February 25, 2013
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1656540
Graber ML, Siegal D, Riah H, et al. Electronic Health Record-Related Events in
Medical Malpractice Claims. Journal of Patient Safety 2015; Published
Ahead-of-Print November 6, 2015
ECRI Institute. Health IT Safe Practices: Toolkit for the
Safe Use of Copy and Paste. Accessed February 29, 2016
Print “PDF
version”
http://www.patientsafetysolutions.com/