Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 23, 2025

Drug Repurposing Hypothesis Generation Using the "RE:fine Drugs" System
Published on: December 11, 2016
Identification of Prescribing Errors in an Electronic Health Record Using a Retract-and-Reorder Tool: A Pilot Study
Joan Devin1, Shane Cullinan1, Claudia Looi2
1From the RCSI School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2.
Objectives:
The aims of this study were to develop and to validate an adapted Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) tool to identify and quantify near-miss/intercepted prescribing errors in an electronic health record.
Methods:
This is a cross-sectional study between February and March 2021 in an Irish maternity hospital. We used the RAR tool to detect near-miss prescribing errors in audit log data. Potential errors flagged by the tool were validated using prescriber interviews. Chart reviews were performed if the prescriber was unavailable for interview. Errors were judged to be clinical decisions in chart reviews through review of narrative notes, order components, and patient's clinical history. Interviews were analyzed with reference to the London Protocol, a process of incident analysis that categorizes causes of errors into various contributory factors including patient factors, task and technology factors, and work environment. Logistic regression with robust clustered standard errors was used to determine predictors for near-miss prescribing errors. We calculated the positive predictive value of the RAR tool by dividing the number of confirmed near-miss prescribing errors by the total number of RAR events identified.
Results:
Eighty-four RAR events were identified in 27,407 medication orders. Seventy-one events were confirmed near-miss prescribing errors, resulting in a positive predictive value of 85.0% (95% confidence interval, 75%-91%) and an estimated near-miss prescribing error rate of 259/100,000 medication orders. Duplicate prescribing errors were most common (54/71, 76.1%). No errors were reported by prescribers. Consultants were less likely to make an error than nonconsultant hospital doctors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.84). Factors associated with errors included workload, staffing levels, and task structure.
Conclusions:
Our adapted RAR tool identified a variety of near-miss prescribing errors not otherwise reported. The tool has been implemented in the study hospital as a patient safety resource. Further implementations are planned across Irish hospitals.
Related Concept Videos
Guidelines and Strategies for Safe Computer Charting
Maintain Confidentiality and Security:
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring
Several factors...
Documentation of Nursing Diagnosis
In some settings, data-driven computerized decision support systems are in place, allowing for more accurate nursing diagnoses. The database within one of these systems includes diagnostic labels defining characteristics, activities, and indicators for nursing. A nurse enters...
Types of Reports III: Telephone and Verbal Reports
Here's an overview of each type:
Telephone Orders
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...

