Network to warn pharmacists of drug errors

Jan. 25th, 2010 by Andrew Van Dam · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Health data, Hospitals, Public health 

The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Landro spotlighted a new national network designed to send e-mail alerts to as many as 55,000 pharmacists.

The network is designed to alert pharmacists of dangerous and life-threatening errors as well as to educate them on how to prevent those specific errors from also occurring in their own respective practices. The system is intended to help the same errors from being repeated time after time across the country.

medsPhoto by jypsygen via Flickr.

Landro wrote that “Medication errors cause at least one death every day and injure approximately 1.3 million people annually in the United States,” and added that there are some indications that the weakening economy has had a negative impact on medication safety.

Here’s Landro explaining the new network:

The non-profit Institute for Safe Medication Practices, which is certified by the federal government to collect error reports and other information about quality breaches, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists are launching a new National Alert Network for Serious Medication Errors. The network, which was unveiled last month, will be used to send email alerts to 35,000 pharmacists working in hospitals and health systems, as well as physicians and nurses, when a dangerous or life-threatening error is reported to ISMP. The two organizations are also in discussions to extend the network to as many as 26 other organizations that promote safe medication use. The hope is that widely spreading the word about such errors will cause doctors and pharmacists to be more cautious—and ultimately prevent future mix-ups. Relevant alerts will also be sent to 20,000 drugstore pharmacists.

Landro also mentioned ISMP’s consumer med safety alert portal and the FDA’s consumer-focused error reporting tool. She also goes into greater detail as to how drug mishaps happen, and into what can be done to prevent them.

Related


Hensley cast as ‘Johnny Appleseed’ in profile

Nov. 3rd, 2009 by Andrew Van Dam · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Health journalism, Member news 

Medical Marketing & Media’s Matthew Arnold profiled AHCJ member Scott Hensley, of the NPR Health Blog, calling him “digital health journalism’s Johnny Appleseed” for his role in starting health blogs at media behemoths such as The Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio.

Scott Hensley (Photo by Duncan Moore)

Scott Hensley (Photo by Duncan Moore)

The piece covers Hensley’s transition from the medical device industry to the media, his rise through the ranks and his attitude toward blog post topic selection.

In addition to the usual channels, Covering Health readers will remember Hensley from his distinguished run of contributions here, between his stints at the WSJ and NPR.

WSJ looks at effects of Penn. outcomes database

The Wall Street Journal’s Thomas Burton has taken a look at the effects of one state’s commitment to publishing hospital data. Since 1989 Pennsylvania has compiled and published data on hospital outcomes and, to a lesser extent, costs. Collecting the data isn’t cheap, estimates of the cost to the state’s 172 acute-care hospitals range from $7 million to $10 million, but Burton’s story makes it clear that the investment has paid off. Burton reinforces that impression with statistics (”An August 2008 study in the American Journal of Medical Quality reported that Pennsylvania in-hospital odds of death were 21% to 41% lower than those in other states.”) and convincing examples (by basing their health plans on outcomes data, companies were able to save millions). His profile of a now-defunct Hershey company plan is particularly interesting.

“High-quality care costs less — always,” says David B. Nash, a medical-quality expert and dean at Thomas Jefferson University’s School of Population Health in Philadelphia. “If the federal government could behave like a savvy shopper, that would change the health-cost game overnight. But the government is a bill payer, not a savvy shopper.”

Burton also reports that some stakeholders, given the success of Pennsylvania’s example, are pushing for hospital outcomes research to be part of the $1 billion stimulus investment into comparative effectiveness.

The White House is looking at publishing information possibly including medical outcomes as part of overhaul efforts, officials say. Quality data could also be used in existing programs. “There is a clear understanding from the Obama administration that both Medicare and Medicaid need to move in the direction of what’s happening in Pennsylvania,” says Jonathan Blum, director of the government’s Center for Medicare Management.

Bernstein, Silberner awarded Carter Fellowships

Jul. 10th, 2009 by Pia Christensen · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Health journalism, Member news 

AHCJ members Elizabeth Bernstein and Joanne Silberner have been awarded Rosalynn Carter Fellowships for Mental Health Journalism for 2009-10.

Bernstein, of The Wall Street Journal, will examine the impact of the economic recession on people with mental illnesses while Silberner, of National Public Radio, will produce radio stories about the treatment of mental illnesses in developing countries.

In its press release, the Carter Center says it received a record number of applicants for the fellowships this year. The fellowships allow journalists to pursuing topic - from their own newsroom - that may not otherwise be brought to the public’s attention. Fellows in the United States receive a stipend of $10,000 to study and report on a particular issue within the field for one year and receives training on covering mental health issues from leading experts.

Projects that past fellows have done have been recognized by Mental Health America, the American Psychological Association, Amnesty International and AHCJ, as well as Emmy and Pulitzer Prize nominations.

Doctors face obstacles in transition to costly EMRs

In his American Journey blog, the Wall Street Journal’s Andy Jordan considered the impact of stimulus funds on the health-care system’s expensive and time-consuming transition to electronic medical records in terms of physicians he encountered in his cross-country travels.

In rural Alabama, Dr. Regina Benjamin switched to EMRs after losing paper records to a combination of hurricanes and fires.

“When a patient or pharmacy calls at night or on a weekend, I do not have to rely on memory. I can access the chart from any computer, at home, from the hospital, from my hotel room when traveling.
This prevents errors and I can give better care. I can also quickly look at trends and patterns, pick up things earlier than if I had to look thru paper charts.” She was able to fund her conversion through donations and foundation support.

In Cambridge, Ohio Jordan met Dr. Patrick Goggin, who he said spent about $300,000 to convert to electronic medical records five years ago. Jordan recorded a four-and-a-half minute video showing the Dr. Goggin’s system in action. Jordan also spoke with Dr. Goggin’s colleague, Dr. David Ray.

“Advantages are not quite there as far as outweighing the costs,” (Dr. Ray) says.
“The technology is probably just not quite there yet for most solo practitioners and small practices to implement such a system.”

In the Minneapolis Star-Tribune Kate Levinson reports on growing demand for centers to store this medical data and on a study that found mid-size Midwestern cities to be among the most attractive to the medical data storage industry.

Steve Lohr of The New York Times reports that the obstacles to a transition to electronic medical records are daunting. Experts say that how local organizations help doctors in small offices adopt electronic records will be crucial to success. Lohr explains “regional health I.T. extension centers,” called for in Obama’s budget proposal that has been submitted to Congress.

Related

Analysis shows pitfalls of observational studies

How much of a chance are you willing to take on a chance finding? That’s the question raised in a British scientific journal after a study published last year suggested that the breakfast cereal eaten by 740 pregnant moms somehow determined the gender of their babies.

As it turned out, 56 percent of the women who consumed the most calories before conception gave birth to boys, compared with 45 percent of those who consumed the least. Of 132 individual foods tracked, breakfast cereal was the most significantly linked with baby boys. Snap, crackle, pop, right?

Not so fast, points out Melinda Beck in a health column in The Wall Street Journal. She rightly notes this was an observational study and the cereal findings are symptomatic of serial conclusions that such studies somehow offer consistently reliable and insightful evidence of a trend.

“Behind the cereal squabble lies a deep divide between statisticians and epidemiologists about the nature of chance in observational studies,” Beck writes. “Statisticians say random associations are rampant in such studies, which is why so many have contradictory findings [ ... and that] only strict clinical trials with a control group and a test group and one variable can truly prove a cause-and-effect association. [But] epidemiologists argue that … controlled clinical trials are costly, time-consuming and sometimes unethical.”

At issue, of course, is the extent to which such studies should be believed and reported before repeated findings offer something more conclusive. What do you think, though? Should observational studies of this sort make headlines or are they a cheap way to attract an audience?