A call for national e-health clinical safety governance

Coiera, Enrico W; Kidd, Michael R; Haikerwal, Mukesh C

doi:10.5694/mja12.10475

The benefits of technology should not be overshadowed by avoidable patient harm

Well designed and implemented information technology (IT) can lead to safer and more effective clinical care.1 This rationale has triggered a rapid and unprecedented expansion in e-health investment globally, most recently in national-scale systems. However, e-health can sometimes lead to patient harm or death through problems in design or operation.2 Chances of harm increase with known risk factors such as poorly designed software or its implementation, including rapid deployment, and poor training and support.3 We have previously argued for regulation of clinical software to mitigate these hazards; a case echoed internationally.4-6

1 University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
2 Flinders University, Adelaide, SA.

Correspondence: e.coiera@unsw.edu.au

Acknowledgements:

The following have provided constructive feedback and support this editorial: Farah Magrabi, Johanna Westbrook, Ric Day, Siaw-Teng Liaw, Peter Hibbert and Jeffrey Braithwaite at the University of New South Wales; Christopher Pearce at the Inner East Melbourne Medicare Local; William Runciman at the University of South Australia; and Jenny Bartlett at the National E-health Transition Authority. This work is supported in part by funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program Grant 568612 and the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in E-health.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2526-2534.
2. Magrabi F, Ong MS, Runciman W, Coiera E. Using FDA reports to inform a classification for health information technology safety problems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: 45-53.
3. Coiera E, Aarts J, Kulikowski C. The dangerous decade. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: 2-5.
4. Coiera EW, Westbrook JI. Should clinical software be regulated [editorial]? Med J Aust 2006; 184: 600-601. <MJA full text>
5. Magrabi F, Coiera EW. Quality of prescribing decision support in primary care: still a work in progress [editorial]. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 227-228. <MJA full text>
6. Sittig DF, Classen DC. Safe electronic health record use requires a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. JAMA 2010; 303: 450-451.
7. Committee on Patient Safety and Health Information Technology; Institute of Medicine. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
8. Makeham MAB, Saltman DC, Kidd MR. Lessons from the TAPS study — recall and reminder systems. Aust Fam Physician 2008; 37: 923-924.
9. Magrabi F, Ong MS, Runciman W, Coiera E. An analysis of computer-related patient safety incidents to inform the development of a classification. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 663-670.
10. Sweidan M, Reeve JF, Brien JE, et al. Quality of drug interaction alerts in prescribing and dispensing software. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 251-254. <MJA full text>
11. Westbrook JI, Reckmann M, Li L, et al. Effects of two commercial electronic prescribing systems on prescribing error rates in hospital in-patients: a before and after study. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001164.
12. Magrabi F, Li SYW, Day RO, Coiera E. Errors and electronic prescribing: a controlled laboratory study to examine task complexity and interruption effects. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 575-583.
13. Singh H, Classen DC, Sittig DF. Creating an oversight infrastructure for electronic health record-related patient safety hazards. J Patient Saf 2011; 7: 169-174.
14. Jones SS, Koppel R, Ridgely MS, et al. Guide to reducing unintended consequences of electronic health records. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2011.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.