Why e-Prescribe and the Future of Transforming Data Into Information
F. Curtiss
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2005.11.5.418
2005-05-01
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
Abstract:■■ Why e-Prescribe and the Future of Transforming Data Into Information Political interest is probably poor motivation for information technology (IT) solutions to reduce medical errors, protect patient safety, improve clinical decisions at the point of care, and reduce the administrative burden for clinicians. Physicians in the United Kingdom are disturbed, concerned, and even appalled at the next generation of IT solutions that are being demonstrated for universal application in the National Health Service. Attendees at the government sessions to introduce the new software to physicians described “IT nightmares” and the likely outcome of making routine functions such as patients booking appointments with general practitioners less efficient while robbing resources from creating additional capacity to deliver health care services. The gap between expectations and reality is large nearly everywhere one looks in health care. While there are success stories, more often, the truth is that success stories are limited to distinct subsets or compartments of the health care system; use of the IT solution is voluntary by clinicians, thereby undermining the value of digital information because it is not complete; the IT system is plagued with error;or a backlash occurs among clinicians who find the new IT system burdensome rather than helpful. The solution to IT overpromises is lower expectations for IT proposals to meet the need for safety, quality, and administrative efficiency in health care. While IT may offer tools to achieve minimum targets for patient safety, experts such as Don Berwick and Brent James argue that more fundamental changes are necessary in philosophy and culture to protect patient safety. Brent James teaches a culture of patient safety with accountability that extends to the board of directors of the corporation or health system enterprise. Don Berwick and coauthors recently addressed the notion that protecting patient safety in health care is as simple as adapting the success stories from civil aviation, nuclear power, and other industries. They argue for a framework to guide quality improvement that acknowledges 5 systemic barriers to safe patient care and 3 problems unique to health care. The systemic barriers arise from the discretion permitted for workers, worker autonomy, a craftsmanship mindset (that needs to transition to a mindset of equivalent actors), insufficient system-level (senior leadership) arbitration to optimize safety strategies, and the need for simplification. The 3 problems unique to health care are: (1) a wide range of risk among medical specialties, (2) difficulty in defining medical error, and (3) various structural constraints (such as public demand, teaching role, and chronic shortage of staff). For many years, Brent James and others have championed the notion of making it easy to do it right—addressing systems and processes of care, regardless of electronic tools, including the insertion of standardized orders such as aspirin and beta-blockers upon hospital discharge following an acute myocardial infarction. However, it seems reasonable to ask why it is easy to have a customer profile at the nationwide pizza chain but necessary for you to complete a patient profile and medical history at every point in the health care journey from the physician office to the hospital laboratory to the medical imaging center, etc. Clearly, there is a need not only for patient safety but also for favorable service outcomes of care and for administrative efficiency to embrace electronic capture and transfer of information. Stories abound of difficulty in integrating data across different software systems, even as basic as the integration of e-prescribing with medication administration processes. Electronic prescribing, or e-prescribing, also known as computerized physician order entry (CPOE), has moved from the health care agenda to the political agenda. General Motors Corp., IBM, AT&T, General Electric, Boeing, and 91 other employers collaborated in 2001 to form the Leapfrog Group to, as its name implies, leapfrog over the present (slow) pace of quality improvement in health care. The Leapfrog Group in 2001 defined 3 basic ways to improve safety and quality of health care for at least the hospital component of the health care system, including the recommendation that managed care organizations contract with only those hospitals that have implemented a computerized order entry system by 2004. In 2005, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich sought to propel his vision of a digital health system with the slogan “paper kills,” meaning that clinical and other patient information on paper can harm the patient in the health care system because the information is not available at the point of care. Surely, e-prescribing represents an undisputed opportunity to reduce medical errors, improve clinical outcomes, and increase efficiency. More expectation for the value of CPOE was added in April 2005 when the Big Three U.S. automakers asked 17,000 physicians to switch to e-prescribing after General Motors announced (again) that it spends more money on health care than for steel. Two articles in JMCP provide differing perspectives on the value of e-prescribing. In this issue, Ross et al. found that neither formulary compliance nor rates of generic drug dispensing were different for predominant e-prescribers compared with traditional prescribers. Approximately 1 in 5 pharmacy claims were for nonformulary drugs for both types of prescribers, and the generic drug dispensing ratio was approximately 37% (in 2001-2002) for both groups. This study by Ross et al. would appear to be a withering endorsement for e-prescribing, but perhaps not. First, Ross et al. could not assure that the clinicians identified as e-prescribers used e-prescribing devices 100% of the time, 90% of the time, or even half of the time; hence, the term “predominant e-prescribers” in their article. This means that a portion of the pharmacy claims labeled as e-prescriptions by the authors were, in fact, not e-prescriptions, potentially diluting a higher ratio of either formulary or generic drug prescribing