Politico’s Arthur Allen has written a useful report on recent findings about EHR-related errors. We must keep in mind, however, that almost all EHR-related errors are unknown, and often unknowable. Why?
- The most common errors involved with EHRs are medication prescribing errors. But we seldom find those errors because those type of errors seldom manifest themselves because so many hospitalized patients are old and sick, have several co-morbidities and are taking many other medications. Key organs, like the liver, kidney and heart, are compromised. Bad things can happen to these patients even when we do everything right; conversely, good things can happen even when we do much wrong. We usually miss the results of, say, a wrongly prescribed medication. (Note: these types of ‘missed’ medication errors contrast to leaving a pair of hemostats in the gut or to wrong-site surgery—where most errors soon become obvious).
- As the experts referenced (Dr. Bob Wachter, Dean Sittig and Hardeep Singh) noted, very, very few cases make it to litigation, further reducing the numbers examined in the study discussed.
- Perhaps worse, few clinicians want to report problems even if they know about them. This is a litigious society and few medical professionals want to spend time in court. Also, as the authors Allen interviewed (all of them my friends and respected colleagues): some of the errors that were known did not result in harm and many were caught by others or by the professional involved in the error before they harmed.
In one of my papers we studied all medication orders stopped by the prescriber within 45 minutes. It emerged that 2/3rds of those orders were either wrong or at least suboptimal. To my knowledge, however, not a single one of those errors was reported as an error (or near miss). More, if the patient already received the medication, I also know of no case where the actual error was reported.
- The non-disclosure clause in EHR vendors’ contracts prevents clinicians from publicly reporting EHR problems to the public. Yes, they can report errors to the vendor, to the FDA, and to a patient safety officer. But if they took a screen shot of a dangerous or deceptive EHR screen and published that to their colleagues or to the web, they could be sued for millions. Moreover, the “hold harmless” clause in those contracts means that vendors are not responsible for errors—even if 2000 doctors have reported them. Of course vendors don’t wish to harm patients and make corrections, but they have not removed those two clause in the 9 years since I exposed them in an article in JAMA.
- EHRs are very difficult to use, and not all of the problems are due to lousy programming by the vendors. The systems must interact with hundreds of other IT systems that are constantly changing. Also there are always new environments, e.g., patients with differing diseases, new clinicians with different training, new equipment, and new requirements. New medications and new disease protocols require constant updating. The quality of the implementation teams differ, as do the institutions’ experience with technology.
All of that said, EHRs suffer from significant usability challenges, e.g.,
- Confusing presentations of patients’ data and general poor usability
- Drop-down lists that continue to several screens (with the existence of the extended often hidden from the clinician)
- Pop-ups that hide medication or problem lists
- Medication lists and problem lists that can’t be seen when ordering medications
- Lab reports presented in erratic or absurd formats and sequences
- Herds of decision support alerts that obscure the screen
- Data that should be contiguous separated by three screens and multiple clicks
- Critical information on the patient is lost because of proprietary EHR software, idiosyncratic device data formats, and refusal to accept data standards, and
- Lack of true interoperability.
- As with any complex software system, one is often not sure if the user is the source of the problem. Did I fail to read a recent update memo? Did the hospital IT department make a change? Did the vendor make a change? Did another colleague alter the patient’s record in some way? Did a diagnosis change and thus the patient is re-classified in some way? Is there a bug? Did I put in the right combinations of passwords? Am I authorized to use this computer on this floor for these types of patients? Like all of us with very complex software, even physicians can feel like sinners in the hands of a capricious god. Few rush to report a “problem” that may be uncertain, due to something or someone else, and may well not even be a problem.
- As the piece by Allen also notes, the ONCs effort to construct a patient safety reporting system has been consistently refused by congress and the administration. Even if a clinician knows about a problem, there is no single place that systematically collects them.
In sum, we know just a tiny fraction of errors associated with EHRs. This report, while most welcome, does not reflect the tip of the iceberg. More, it’s a scratch on the tip of the iceberg.
NOTE: parts of this text are taken from some of my previous publications.
Ross Koppel, Ph.D. FACMI, UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senior Fellow, Wharton’s Leonard Davis Institute of Healthcare Economics;
Senior Fellow, Center for Public Health Initiatives, Perelman Sch of Medicine;
Adjunct Professor (full) Sociology Department;
Principal Investigator and Affil Prof of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine;
Senior Investigator, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Also: Chair, Clinical Information systems, AMIA; & Research Prof. Biomedical Informatics, SUNY@Buffalo