Detecting Potential Medication Selection Errors During Outpatient Pharmacy Processing of Electronic Prescriptions With the RxNorm Application Programming Interface: Retrospective Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication errors are pervasive. Electronic prescriptions (e-prescriptions) convey secure and computer-readable prescriptions from clinics to outpatient pharmacies for dispensing. Once received, pharmacy staff perform a transcription task to select the medications needed to process e-prescriptions within their dispensing software. Later, pharmacists manually double-check medications selected to fulfill e-prescriptions before dispensing to the patient. Although pharmacist double-checks are mostly effective for catching medication selection mistakes, the cognitive process of medication selection in the computer is still prone to error because of heavy workload, inattention, and fatigue. Leveraging health information technology to identify and recover from medication selection errors can improve patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the performance of an automated double-check of pharmacy prescription records to identify potential medication selection errors made in outpatient pharmacies with the RxNorm application programming interface (API). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of 537,710 pairs of e-prescription and dispensing records from a mail-order pharmacy for the period January 2017 to October 2018. National Drug Codes (NDCs) for each pair were obtained from the National Library of Medicine's (NLM's) RxNorm API. The API returned RxNorm concept unique identifier (RxCUI) semantic clinical drug (SCD) identifiers associated with every NDC. The SCD identifiers returned for the e-prescription NDC were matched against the corresponding SCD identifiers from the pharmacy dispensing record NDC. An error matrix was created based on the hand-labeling of mismatched SCD pairs. Performance metrics were calculated for the e-prescription-to-dispensing record matching algorithm for both total pairs and unique pairs of NDCs in these data. RESULTS: We analyzed 527,881 e-prescription and pharmacy dispensing record pairs. Four clinically significant cases of mismatched RxCUI identifiers were detected (ie, three different ingredient selections and one different strength selection). A total of 546 less significant cases of mismatched RxCUIs were found. Nearly all of the NDC pairs had matching RxCUIs (28,787/28,817, 99.90%-525,270/527,009, 99.67%). The RxNorm API had a sensitivity of 1, a false-positive rate of 0.00104 to 0.00312, specificity of 0.99896 to 0.99688, precision of 0.00727 to 0.04255, and F1 score of 0.01444 to 0.08163. We found 872 pairs of records without an RxCUI. CONCLUSIONS: The NLM's RxNorm API can perform an independent and automatic double-check of correct medication selection to verify e-prescription processing at outpatient pharmacies. RxNorm has near-comprehensive coverage of prescribed medications and can be used to recover from medication selection errors. In the future, tools such as this may be able to perform automated verification of medication selection accurately enough to free pharmacists from having to perform manual double-checks of the medications selected within pharmacy dispensing software to fulfill e-prescriptions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".