The impact of transition to a digital hospital on medication errors (TIME study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital transformation in healthcare improves the safety of health systems. Within our health service, a new digital hospital has been established and two wards from a neighbouring paper-based hospital transitioned into the new digital hospital. This created an opportunity to evaluate the impact of complete digital transformation on medication safety. Here we discuss the impact of transition from a paper-based to digital hospital on voluntarily reported medication incidents and prescribing errors. This study utilises an interrupted time-series design and takes place across two wards as they transition from a paper to a digital hospital. Two data sources are used to assess impacts on medication incidents and prescribing errors: (1) voluntarily reported medication incidents and 2) a chart audit of medications prescribed on the study wards. The chart audit collects data on procedural, dosing and therapeutic prescribing errors. There are 588 errors extracted from incident reporting software during the study period. The average monthly number of errors reduces from 12.5 pre- to 7.5 post-transition (p < 0.001). In the chart audit, 5072 medication orders are reviewed pre-transition and 3699 reviewed post-transition. The rates of orders with one or more error reduces significantly after transition (52.8% pre- vs. 15.7% post-, p < 0.001). There are significant reductions in procedural (32.1% pre- vs. 1.3% post-, p < 0.001), and dosing errors (32.3% pre- vs. 14% post-, p < 0.001), but not therapeutic errors (0.6% pre- vs. 0.7% post-, p = 0.478). Transition to a digital hospital is associated with reductions in voluntarily reported medication incidents and prescribing errors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".