Description
The main purpose of the case study of Zoya is to underscore the significance of electronic prescription software as a clinical decision support tool in the deterrence of errors in medication and the subsequent colossal consequences. Furthermore, the case study aims at examining the role of patients and consumers in the process of care delivery and in preventing any occurrence of medication error, and to ascertain the likely threats of hybrid paper and electronic medical records. The case study, therefore, seeks to offer solutions to problems associated with errors in medication. For instance, the use of existing guidelines by general practitioners while providing drug prescriptions, the quality of patient records kept in healthcare centers and the effectiveness during retrieval, procedures in the adoption of hybrid and paper medical records, and issues with the decision support in the clinical software package.
Zoya was an employee of a factory for five years. One Monday morning after a night shift she felt ill and had a sore ear and therefore went ahead to make an appointment with the doctor on the same day after consulting her partner (lover). Zoya had experienced the issue for three days. She wanted to be attended to by the family general practitioner who was in another clinic, 2 kilometers away and could only be available in three days. As a result, she made an appointment with Dr. Stanley; an experienced 70 year old doctor on the very same day. Dr. Stanley worked at Get Well Clinic; a local clinic, fully credited with several physicians, and he was a registered GP with 50 years’ experience in the medical profession and much respected by his colleagues and patients. Zoya had also visited the Get Well Clinic for the last 10 years on a frequent basis Britt et al. (1).
During the consultation with the doctor at around 11: 00 am, Zoya narrated her scenario to the doctor who noted down her medical history and assessed her ears using an otoscope. The doctor then found out that the right side of her outer ear canal was severely inflamed, but the middle ear was in good condition, thus making him diagnose her of otitis externa, which is an inflammation of both the ear canal and outer ear. The doctor never ascertained any abnormalities in the patient’s abdomen, heart, lungs, and throat while on the examination table. The doctor was accustomed to using topical antibiotic ointments or oral medication as an alternative. Ceclor, an oral antibiotic was prescribed by Dr. Stanley due to the seriousness of the ear infection. Dr. Stanley had a practice of examining the records of a patient for information regarding any registered allergies by making three inquiries: whether the patient was under any medications, was allergic to anything, and any allergic reactions to any medications. If the patient’s response were on the affirmative regarding any of the questions, then the doctor would go ahead to determine the specific medications that caused the allergic reaction. However, Dr. Stanley could neither remember detailed information of the consultation with Zoya nor the conversation with the patient on allergy matters but later proved that it was not his usual practice to go through previous records of the patient before consultation (1).
Discussion
At the time of consultation with Zoya, the Get Well Clinic maintained medical records using an electronic system with no paper records. During the visit of Zoya, 77% of the GPs used the electronic system to give medical prescriptions while 54% kept electronic medical records supplied by commercial clinical software packages with the capability of entering progress notes, offering prescriptions, and request for various tests in the clinic laboratory (1). Zoya received printed copies of the prescriptions which were formulated electronically.
The doctor’s consultation room was equipped with a desktop computer of which he was not well conversant with its use. But the clinic had made efforts to offer him basic training on the use of electronic medical records. Thus, he was conscious of the procedure of keying in data during a consultation. The GP was aware that he could review records of the previous consultation using the electronic record and any possible medical contraindications such as allergies could be retrieved. After consultation, Dr. Stanley could make a note of the outgoing patient before the incoming one.
Zoya was given a handwritten prescription for Ceclor to be taken twice for each day in five days in addition to a certificate for one day off work. Dr. Stanley keyed in the consultation note just after the patient had left the room but did not see the note on allergy when entering the data. Furthermore, against his routine practice, the doctor failed to review his notes to find out any reference to allergic reactions to specific drugs.
Zoya went directly to a local pharmacist with the prescription and was given the drugs without any question from the pharmacist. After which she went home and took the initial dose as prescribed. Her partner, John came back home around midday and found her lying unconscious on her side across the bottom of the bed with limbs stretched to the edges of the bed, with welts on her body and swollen face with no signs of breathing. John called an ambulance, and the paramedics observed complete cardiac arrest and initiated CPR and were transferred to a local hospital after one hour. She was admitted in ICU with continuing life support, but still, her condition became worse in two days. On the third day at 9:59 a.m. a perfusion scan showed that her brain had no blood perfusion and was pronounced dead at 1:07 p.m. and her life support turned off Magrabi et al. (2).
Zoya succumbed to instant anaphylactic reaction facilitated by IgE. According to Simons et al. (3), allergic reactions are as a result of the growth of systemic hemodynamic collapse that can take place within an hour of medical administration. The Cefaclor drug administered to Zoya is contraindicated in allergic patients to a cephalosporin or prior allergic response to penicillin or carbapenems Torres et al. (4). Furthermore, the Australian state has prescribed guidelines that prohibit the administration of penicillin, carbapenem, and cephalosporin to patients with any instant reaction to penicillin (3). Based on the case study, the following issues are outlined and their corresponding implications.
According to the (3), individuals diagnosed with otitis externa should not be administered with oral antibiotics. This, therefore, implies that the decision by Dr. Stanley to prescribe Cefaclor to the patient was not correct. The major problem regarding this case is the decision between systemic and topical treatment and warnings for antibiotic drops. A study by Rosenfeld et al. (5) showed that the treatment of acute otitis externa during primary care by the use of steroid drops alongside acetic acid or antibiotics enhances the results with a decrease in the period of symptoms in relation to when acetic acid is used independently. Marchisio et al. (6) in their research found out that when topical steroids were used alongside antibiotics or without, there was a decrease in the rate of continuous infection and subsequent consultation over oral therapy.
The history of allergies and allergic reactions of Zoya would not justify the use of cefaclor even if the oral antibiotic were justified. Smith (7) observes that cefaclor is contraindicated in individuals with a history of allergy to penicillin or some category of antibiotics such as cephalosporin group. This information is clearly labeled as product information on the drug details. Furthermore, several documentations indicate that people who are characteristic of hypersensitivity to penicillin or cephalosporin have developed serious reactions when administered with penicillin or cephalosporin. Therefore, the decision by Dr. Stanley is not known whether it was arrived at after reviewing the ongoing medications of Zoya and her history of allergic reactions. A violation of this requirements contravenes the standards for general practice in Australia Britt et al. (8). This points out to the negligence of Dr. Stanley in his medical practice. The product information prescribes the possible contraindications of the drug to those allergic to penicillin and some antibiotic such as Zoya. This information was contained in her medical history which the doctor was negligent to access.
The system of registering a patient’s medical history at the Get Well Clinic is in-effective considering the omitted information of Zoya on allergic reactions. For instance, even though Zoya had visited the clinic previously for over ten years, there were missing records on hospital discharge and former severe allergic reactions. It is required in practice that illnesses be identified and recorded in the medical records using their generic medication name, medication class or brand name Qaseem et al. (9), Steinberg et al. (10). But this was done contrary in the medical records at Get Well Clinic in which the allergies were identified by brand names such as Septrin, Ilosone among others. Both the hospital and the clinic had incomplete data of prior allergic reactions of Zoya such as penicillin and erythromycin allergies. But still, Dr. Stanley did not make an effort of accessing even the little medical history of the patient before giving the prescription.
The decision to use the electronic system to key in notes on consultation and the writing of the prescriptions by hand changed the paperless system at the clinic into a hybrid system. The use of either paper records or hybrid to record patient information is bound to mistakes. To avert such mistakes or loopholes in the use of the system, The Australian Standards for general practice recommends that the system should have a note to enhance the continuity of the hybrid system and advises that operations with hybrid patient health record systems endeavor towards recording the allergies and treatments (8). The practice of electronically keying in progress notes while issuing prescriptions in handwritten form is risky even though the specific risks are not pointed out. On the other hand, the common and generally accepted practice standard in the use of hybrid health record system is to include an allergic status of the patient and prescription writing using the same system Johnson et al. (11). Dr. Stanley was insensible to the risk of the use of hybrid system and did not even follow the generally accepted standards while using it. This further demonstrates Dr. Stanley’s negligence in his role as an experienced physician.
The electronic prescribing software enables the prevention of errors in medication and severe drug events Lapane et al. (12). But the negligence of Dr. Stanley made it impossible for the drug-allergy software to detect the errors because the clinical decision support system was not fitted with a feature command that would demand a record of know allergies or a confirmation for the same before one continues with the workflow.
Patient records are very significant both to the physician and to the patient. Both Get Well Clinic and the hospital did not have complete patient information leading to wrong the prescription and even death. The health center should design strategies to be adopted while gathering patient information in such a way that the process is systematic and prevents one from moving to the next phase until the previous one is completed. This will help to avoid mistakes by general practitioners such as Dr. Stanley of altering an established workflow at one’s convenience. A study conducted by Zegers et al. (13) on indicators of quality care found out that a review of the records of hospitalized patient information was key in examining adverse effects in hospitals. Furthermore, the authors found a significant positive association between the quality of patient information and the quality of patient care.
Irrespective of the doctor’s prescription, a patient also has individual responsibility of healthcare by ensuring that the prescriptions given by the physician are appropriate based on his or her understanding. Zoya did not even remember her past allergic conditions of penicillin and other antibiotics but went ahead and took medications which lead to an instant anaphylactic reaction and at last death. Say et al. (14) conducted a study on patient’s preference in the process of decision making and found out that patients had the sole responsibility of disclosing all relevant information to the healthcare provider for the purpose of administering appropriate medication. Additionally, the authors point out that patients have the responsibility of questioning the prescriptions of the doctors if at all they doubted them.
Studies have shown positive significant association between the use of clinical decision support system and low rates of medication errors and adverse effects of prescribed drugs Romano et al. (15), Jaspers et al. (16), Reckmann et al. (17), Brady (18), Ammenwerth et al. (19). The Get Well Clinic used an electronic medical record system to capture patient data, but still, the system was faced with various weaknesses which made it difficult for the drug-allergy software to detect the doctor’s oversight. These inherent weaknesses in the system can be corrected through two main ways; incorporation of a hard stop and formulation of decision support instructions for generating prescription signals.
The clinical decision support system lacked a “hard stop” function. Such a feature would force the physician to record any allergic reactions of the patient or none of it before making any prescriptions DC (20). This would act as a safety measure because it could not have permitted the physician to proceed with his workflow of designing a prescription without first recording the absence or presence of any allergic reactions.
The formulation of decision support instructions for generating prescription signals when entering in the prescription is important so that the system can give a warning in case of a contraindication medication is prescribed. It is a standard practice that an allergy is identified by using a generic medication name, medication class or brand name. In the case of Zoya, the rules governing the support system were only set to raise an alert of allergic warming for the specified brand name of cephalexin and not for any other. No alert warning was raised because Dr. Stanley did not use the system to generate the prescription. Moreover, had he used the computer to generate a prescription but still using a different name from the one specifically prefigured in the system, still, the alerts would not have been displayed.
Conclusion
An error, propagated by the system, in a prescription to a commonly treated condition led to the death of the patient. This was because the allergic reaction was not noted during prescription due to the doctor’s negligence in the use of a hybrid medical record system in which the doctor made a handwritten prescription and entered progress notes in an electronic system after the patient had left the doctor’s room. This report underscores the significance of integrating clinical decision support functions with the electronic prescription software in the avoidance of medication errors and adversarial impacts. Additionally, this report shows that patients and consumers have a role in the healthcare process against any potential medical error.
Reference list
(1) Britt H, Miller GC, Henderson J, Charles J, Valenti L, Harrison C, Bayram C, Zhang C, Pollack AJ, O’Halloran J, Pan Y. General Practice Activity in Australia 2011-12: BEACH, Bettering the Evaluation And Care of Health. Sydney University Press; 2012 Nov 26.
(2) Magrabi F, Ford D, Arachi D, Williams H. Death despite known drug allergy. Case Studies In Patient Safety: Foundations for Core Competencies. Burlington MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 2015 Feb 6:247-60.
(3) Simons FE, Ardusso LR, Bilo MB, Dimov V, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal YM, Ledford DK, Lockey RF, Ring J, Sanchez-Borges M, Senna GE. 2012 Update: World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis. Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology. 2012 Aug 1;12(4):389-99.
(4) Torres MJ, Mayorga C, Blanca M. 1 Nonimmediate Allergic Reactions Induced by Drugs: Pathogenesis and Diagnostic Tests. Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology. 2009 Jan 1;19(2):80.
(5) Rosenfeld RM, Schwartz SR, Cannon CR, Roland PS, Simon GR, Kumar KA, Huang WW, Haskell HW, Robertson PJ. Clinical practice guideline: acute otitis externa. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. 2014 Feb;150(1_suppl):S1-24.
(6) Marchisio P, Bellussi L, Di Mauro G, Doria M, Felisati G, Longhi R, Novelli A, Speciale A, Mansi N, Principi N. Acute otitis media: from diagnosis to prevention. Summary of the Italian guideline. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 2010 Nov 1;74(11):1209-16.
(7) Smith W. Medications: Adverse drug reactions: Allergy? Side-effect? Intolerance?. Australian family physician. 2013 Jan;42(1/2):12.
(8) Britt H, Miller GC, Henderson J, Bayram C, Valenti L, Harrison C, Charles J, Pan Y, Zhang C, Pollack AJ, O’Halloran J. A decade of Australian general practice activity 2003-04 to 2012-13: General practice series no. 34. Sydney University Press; 2013 Nov 11.
(9) Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Annals of internal medicine. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):525-31.
(10) Steinberg E, Greenfield S, Wolman DM, Mancher M, Graham R, editors. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. National Academies Press; 2011 Jul 16.
(11) Johnson SB, Bakken S, Dine D, Hyun S, Mendonça E, Morrison F, Bright T, Van Vleck T, Wrenn J, Stetson P. An electronic health record based on structured narrative. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2008 Jan 1;15(1):54-64.
(12) Lapane KL, Waring ME, Schneider KL, Dubé C, Quilliam BJ. A mixed method study of the merits of e-prescribing drug alerts in primary care. Journal of general internal medicine. 2008 Apr 1;23(4):442-6.
(13) Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP, van der Wal G. Quality of patient record keeping: an indicator of the quality of care?. BMJ quality & safety. 2011 Apr 1;20(4):314-8.
(14) Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient education and counseling. 2006 Feb 1;60(2):102-14.
(15) Romano MJ, Stafford RS. Electronic health records and clinical decision support systems: impact on national ambulatory care quality. Archives of internal medicine. 2011 May 23;171(10):897-903.
(16) Jaspers MW, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H, Peute LW. Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2011 Mar 21;18(3):327-34.
(17) Reckmann MH, Westbrook JI, Koh Y, Lo C, Day RO. Does computerized provider order entry reduce prescribing errors for hospital inpatients? A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2009 Sep 1;16(5):613-23.
(18) Brady Am, Malone Am, Fleming S. A literature review of the individual and systems factors that contribute to medication errors in nursing practice. Journal of nursing management. 2009 Sep;17(6):679-97.
(19) Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2008 Sep 1;15(5):585-600.
(20) DC, Wasserman MR, Olsho LE, Shoemaker SJ, Spranca MD, Bradshaw B. Reduction in medication errors in hospitals due to adoption of computerized provider order entry systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2013 Feb 21;20(3):470-6.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
