Health information technology has been widely accepted as having the potential to decrease the prevalence of adverse events and improve workflows and communication between healthcare workers. However, the emergence of health technologies has introduced a new type of medical error. Technology-induced errors are a type of medical error that can result from the use of health information technology in all stages of the health information systems life cycle. The purpose of this study is to identify what types of technology-induced errors are present in the key health information technology vendors in the United States, determine if there are any similarities and differences in technology-induced errors present among the key health information technology vendors in the United States, and determine what methods are utilized, if any, by the key vendors of health information technologies to address and/or resolve reported technology-induced errors. This study found that the most commonly reported technology-induced errors are those related to unexpected system behaviours, either through their direct use or through the communication between systems. It was also found that there is a large difference in the number of adverse events being reported by the key health information technology vendors. Just three vendors represent 85% of the adverse events included in this study. Finally, this study found that there are vendors who are posting responses to reported technology-induced errors and these vendors are most commonly following up with software updates and notifications of safety incidents. This study highlights the importance of analyzing adverse event reports in order to understand the types of technology-induced errors that are present in health information technology. / Graduate

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to monitor adverse events resulting from pharmaceutical drug use. However, this system has limitations such as not allowing real-time data collection. To address these limitations, the FDA launched the Sentinel Initiative in 2008. This comparative case study was conducted to describe perceptions of investigating the efficacy of the Sentinel Initiative compared with the FAERS. The study was based on the theory of preemption as it emphasized the need for efficient means for providing unquestionable proof that consumers suffered adverse drug effects. The sample included interivews of 20 individuals, who worked closely with the FAERS program and were familiar with the Sentinel Initiative. In-depth key-informant interviews had been conducted to determine the perceptions of the participants regarding the challenges and benefits of the Sentinel Initiative compared with FAERS. To analyze data, content analysis was used. The study concluded that the FAERS and Sentinel Initiative provided a systematic database, which included health data, that could be used to improve public health. Due to the FAERS and Sentinel Initiative, adverse effects of drugs will be recognized and the safety of the patients and the public will be prioritized. The findings of this study have potential social impact for positive change at the societal level, organizational level, and individual level in terms of overall safety of the drugs. Sentinel initiative at its present state complements the existing FAERS and leverage its benefits by connecting at a grass roots level patients to an organization level as well as stakeholders to make an impact in providing safer drugs on the market.

No description available.

Background: The increasing consumption of dietary supplements (DS) has drawn the attention of regulatory agencies, researchers and healthcare professionals. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require premarketing assessment of DS considering them safe unless proven otherwise. However, the reporting rate of DS adverse events (DS-AE) is low. Objective: To describe pharmacists’ attitudes and knowledge of DS and DS information resources, and to determine the importance of selected attributes in pharmacists’ decisions to report a DS-AE. Methods: A convenience sample of practicing pharmacists in Virginia was surveyed using a web-based self-administered questionnaire. A conjoint analysis exercise was developed using several scenarios based on a set of five attributes: patient’s age, initiation of DS, last modification in drug therapy, evidence supporting the AE, and outcome of the AE. Participants were asked to indicate their decision to report the AE in each scenario to prescriber, drug manufacturer, DS manufacturer and FDA on a 6-point ordered scale. Participants’ attitude, knowledge of DS, demographic information, and DS information resources were also requested. Linear regression models were used to determine the relative importance of the profile attributes on a pharmacist’s decision to report the AE. The effects of other characteristics on the importance of the attributes were assessed. Results: Participants’ overall attitudes were relatively positive for the clinical use of DS but negative for safe of DS. Formal training on DS was associated with better knowledge of DS regulation. The average knowledge score of DS identification was relatively good but was low for DS regulation. Lexi-Comp® was the most widely used and available information resource and the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database was the most useful once. The most important attribute that a pharmacist considered in the decision to report a DS-AE to DS manufacturer, drug manufacturer and FDA was the outcome of the AE followed by the evidence supporting the AE. Ranking of these two factors was the reversed in reporting to prescriber. Conclusions: Outcome and evidence of the AE are the most important factors participants considered when reporting. Other characteristics do not have an impact on the relative importance of the attributes.