View source for Effect of Bar-Code Technology on the Safety of Medication Administration

This is a review of Eric G. Poon et al. study of [[barcode medication administration]]<ref name="eric g poon 2010">Poon, Eric G., Carol A. Keohane, Catherine S. Yoon, Matthew Ditmore, Anne Bane, Osnat Levtzion-Korach, Thomas Moniz, Jeffrey M. Rothschild, Allen B. Kachalia, Judy Hayes, William W. Churchill, Stuart Lipsitz, Anthony D. Whittemore, David W. Bates, and Tejal K. Gandhi. "Effect of Bar-Code Technology on the Safety of Medication Administration." New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J Med 362.18 (2010): 1698-707. Web. 30 Sept. 2015. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0907115?viewType=Print&viewClass=Print.</ref>.

== Research questions ==
Does the use of barcode verification technology in transcription and medication administration reduce the rate of error, and therefore improve patient safety?

== Abstract ==
The authors did a comparison of rates of errors in medication administration and order transcription in a hospital before and after the implementation of a barcode [[Electronic Medication Administration Record]](eMAR). These errors categorized as timing errors and nontiming errors, and were reviewed by clinicians to be determined as potential adverse drug events. The study found that units that used barcode eMARs had a lower rate of error in medication for both timing and nontiming categories than units that did not use barcode eMARs, and that errors in order transcription were completely eliminated in units that used barcode eMARs.   

== Methods ==
35 adult medical, intensive care, and surgical units at a large 735-bed tertiary academic medical. Rates of error in order transcription and medical administration were recorded over a 9 month period in 2005. A little while into the study, the hospital began to roll out a barcode eMAR system in April 2005, with full implementation of the system in all 35 units of the study in July 2005. Specially trained nurses were used to shadow the staff and record any errors they saw. These errors were then reviewed by a panel of clinicians to assess the danger level to the patient. This was done twice in each unit observed, once before the implementation of the system and once after the implementation of the system. 


== Results ==



== Conclusion ==


== Comments ==



== References ==
<references/>