Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lambert 2009
Lambert 2009
ListenCarefully:TheRiskofErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
BruceL.Lambert,Ph.D.1,2,LauraWalshDickey,Ph.D.3,WilliamM.Fisher,Ph.D.4,RobertD.Gibbons,
Ph.D.5,SwuJaneLin,Ph.D.1,PaulA.Luce,Ph.D.6,ConorT.McLennan,Ph.D.7,JohnW.Senders,Ph.D.8,
ClementT.Yu,Ph.D.9
DepartmentofPharmacyAdministration,UniversityofIllinoisatChicago;2DepartmentofPharmacy
Practice,UniversityofIllinoisatChicago;3DepartmentofCommunicationScienceandDisorders,
UniversityofPittsburgh;4WilliamM.FisherConsulting,Inc.,Gaithersburg,MD;5CenterforBiomedical
Statistics,DepartmentofPsychiatry,UniversityofIllinoisatChicago;6DepartmentofPsychology,
UniversityatBuffalo;7DepartmentofPsychology,ClevelandStateUniversity;8FacultyofApplied
Science,UniversityofToronto,Toronto,Ontario,Canada;9DepartmentofComputerScience,University
ofIllinoisatChicago.Afterthefirstauthor,theorderoftheremainingauthorsisalphabetical.
CorrespondingAuthor:BruceL.Lambert,Ph.D.
Address:
DepartmentofPharmacyAdministration,
833S.WoodStreet(M/C871),Chicago,IL606127231
Phone:
3129962411
Fax:
3129960868
Email:
lambertb@uic.edu
WordCount:
7991
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Abstract
Cliniciansandpatientsoftenconfusedrugnamesthatsoundalike(Hicks,Becker,&Cousins,
2008).Weconductedauditoryperceptionexperimentstoassesstheimpactofsimilarity,familiarity,
backgroundnoiseandotherfactorsoncliniciansandlaypersonsabilitytoidentifyspokendrugnames.
Accuracyincreasedsignificantlyasthesignaltonoise(S/N)ratioincreased,assubjectivefamiliaritywith
thenameincreasedandasthenationalprescribingfrequencyofthenameincreased.Forcliniciansonly,
similaritytootherdrugnamesreducedidentificationaccuracy,especiallywhentheneighboringnames
werefrequentlyprescribed.Whenonenamewassubstitutedforanother,thesubstitutednamewas
almostalwaysamorefrequentlyprescribeddrug.Objectivelymeasurablepropertiesofdrugnamescan
beusedtopredictconfusability.Themagnitudeofthenoiseandfamiliarityeffectssuggeststhatthey
maybeimportanttargetsforintervention.
SingleSentenceSummary:Theabilityofcliniciansandlaypeopletoidentifyspokendrugnamesis
influencedbysignaltonoiseratio,subjectivefamiliarity,prescribingfrequency,andthesimilarity
neighborhoodsofdrugnames.
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Introduction
Inclinicalmedicine,therisksofmisinterpretationoftelephoneordersarewidelyrecognized
(Koczmara,Jelincic,&Perri,2006;PennsylvaniaPatientSafetyAuthority,2006;TheJointCommission,
2008).Theuseofthetelephonetocommunicatemedicationordersleadstoerrorbecauseofboth
ambientnoiseandthelimitedbandwidthofmosttelephones(Aronson,2004;Hoffman&Proulx,2003;
Lambert,2008;Rodman,2003;Wiener,Liu,Nelson,&Hoffman,2004).Telephonestypicallycarrysignals
between300Hzand3kHz,amuchnarrowerbandwidththanthatofFMradio(30Hzto15kHz)orCD
audio(20Hzto20kHz);whereas,muchoftheimportantacousticinformationthatallowspeopleto
distinguishbetweensimilarconsonantsoundsliesabove3kHzandismissingentirelyfromthe
telephonesignal(Rodman,2003).Thereare3.8billionprescriptionsdispensedinoutpatientpharmacies
annuallyintheUnitedStates(IMSHealth,2008).Telephoneordersaccountfor34%ofretail
prescriptionvolume.Thistranslatesto114milliontelephoneprescriptionsannually,or312,000perday.
Onestudyof813telephoneorderstotwochainpharmaciesfoundthatthewrongmedicationnamewas
transcribedin1.4%oftheorders(Camp,Hailemeskel,&Rogers,2003).The1.4%ratemaynotbea
generalizableestimate,butgiventhenumberofopportunities,evenaverylowerrorratewould
translateintoalargenumberoferrors.
Spokenorderswereoncecommonininpatientsettingsalso,althoughlesssoafteraccrediting
agenciespressedfortheirelimination.One346bedhospitalcounted4197medicationrelatedverbal
ordersinasevendayperiod(Wakefield,etal.,2008).Hospitalpharmacistsreported35minutesofevery
8hourshiftwerespentresolvingproblemswithspokenorders(Allinson,Szeinbach,&Schneider,2005).
Respondentsidentifiedpeopletalkinginthebackgroundandbackgroundnoiseasthegreatest
barrierstothecorrectprocessingofspokenorders.Otherfactorsincludedlackoffamiliaritywiththe
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
patientsclinicalconditionorthemedication,badconnectionsandexcessivelyrapidspeech(Allinson,et
al.,2005).
Theuseofcellphonesandvoicemailandthenoisyenvironmentsinwhichordersaresentand
received,increasetheriskofspokenprescriptionordersbeingmisperceived.Therearemanyexamples
ofauditoryperceptionerrors,somewithfatalconsequences(e.g.,Liquibidvs.Lithobid,Cardenevs.
codeine,Lopidvs.Slobid,erythromycinvs.azithromycin,Klonopinvs.clonidine,Viscerolvs.vistaril,
Orgaranvs.argatroban)(Allinson,etal.,2005;Dr.ordersLiquibidLithobiddispenseddeathresults.
Caseonpoint:Cliffordv.GeritomMed.,Inc.,681N.W.2d680MN(2004),"2004;Koczmara,etal.,2006;
PennsylvaniaPatientSafetyAuthority,2006;Vivian,2004).
Identifyingthefactorsthatinfluenceaccuracyintheperceptionofspokendrugnamesmay
facilitateinterventionsdesignedtomaketelephoneorderssafer.TheU.S.FoodandDrugAdministration
andthepharmaceuticalindustryhavestruggledtodevelopmethodsforevaluatingtheconfusabilityof
newdrugnames(U.S.FoodandDrugAdministration,2008).Wehaveshownthatobjectivemeasuresof
similarityandprescribingfrequencycanreliablypredicttheprobabilitythattwonameswillbeconfused
invisualperceptionandshorttermmemory(Lambert,1997;Lambert,Chang,&Gupta,2003;Lambert,
Chang,&Lin,2001b;Lambert,Donderi,&Senders,2002;Lambert,Lin,Gandhi,&Chang,1999;Lambert,
Yu,&Thirumalai,2004),andwehavedescribedprocessesfordesigningsaferdrugnames(Lambert,Lin,
&Tan,2005).Oneimportantpartofthatprocessistouseestablishedexperimentalparadigmsfrom
psycholinguisticstoevaluatetheconfusabilityofproposeddrugnamesinrelevanttasks(e.g.,auditory
perception,visualperception,andshorttermmemory).Anearlierstudyofnoiseandpharmacy
dispensingerrorsfound,counterintuitively,thatnoiseimprovedperformance,butrecommendedthat
morecontrolledexperimentsbedonetoclarifytherelationshipbetweennoiseanderrorrates(Flynn,
Barker,Gibson,&others,1996).Inthisstudy,wesoughttodemonstratehowthistypeof
4
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
experimentationcouldshedlightonthefactorsthatinfluenceauditoryperceptionofdrugnames.Thus
oneofthekeychallengesweaddressedwastotranslatethebasicscienceofauditorywordperception
intotheapplieddomainofdrugnameconfusion.Theworkwasdesignedtodeterminehowandtowhat
extentcharacteristicsofdrugnames,ofordertakers,andofpracticeenvironmentsaffectalisteners
abilitytoidentifyspokendrugnames.
AuditoryWordPerception
Toexplainauditoryperceptualconfusions,weuseLucesNeighborhoodActivationModel
(NAM)(Grossberg,1986;Luce,Goldinger,Auer,&Vitevitch,2000;Luce&Pisoni,1998;Vitevitch&Luce,
1999).Accordingtothismodel,stimulusinputactivatesasetofsimilarsoundingacousticphonetic
patternsinmemory.Theactivationlevelsoftheacousticphoneticpatternsareafunctionoftheir
degreeofmatchwiththeinput.Inturn,thesepatternsactivateasetofworddecisionunitstunedtothe
acousticphoneticpatterns.Theworddecisionunitscomputeprobabilitiesforeachpatternbasedonthe
intelligibilityandfrequencyofoccurrenceofthewordtowhichthepatterncorrespondsandthe
activationlevelsandfrequenciesofoccurrenceofallothersimilarsoundingwordsinthesystem.The
worddecisionunitthatcomputesthehighestprobabilitywins,anditswordiswhatisheard.Inshort,
worddecisionunitscomputeprobabilityvaluesbasedontheacousticphoneticsimilarityofthewordto
theinput,thefrequencyoftheword,andtheactivationlevelsandfrequenciesofallothersimilarwords
activatedinmemory.
TheNAMpredictsthatmultipleactivationhasconsequences:Spokenwordswithmanysimilar
sounding,higherfrequency(ormorecommonlyoccurring)neighborswillbeprocessedmoreslowlyand
lessaccuratelythanwordswithfewneighbors.Thesepredictionshavebeenconfirmedin
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
manystudies:Wordsindenselypopulated,highfrequencysimilarityneighborhoodsareindeed
processedlessquicklyandlessaccuratelythanwordsinlowdensity,lowerfrequencyneighborhoods,
andwordswithhigherfrequencyofoccurrenceareprocessedmorerapidlyandaccuratelythanlower
frequencywords(Jusczyk&Luce,2002;Lambert,etal.,2003).
TheNAMemploysanexplicitmathematicalfunctionthatattemptstopredictauditory
perceptualerrorsbasedontheintelligibilityofstimulusword,thefrequencyofoccurrenceofthe
stimulusword,andthesimilarityandfrequencyofneighboringwords.Thisfunctionisknownas
frequencyweightedneighborhoodprobability(FWNP).Detailedmathematicaldescriptionsofthe
functionusedtocomputeFWNPforeachnamearegivenelsewhere(Jusczyk&Luce,2002;Lambert,Lin,
Toh,etal.,2005).Otherthingsbeingequal,FWNPwillincreaseasthenumber,similarity,and
prescribingfrequencyofneighborsdecrease.TheNAMprovidedtheframeworkforthedevelopmentof
severalhypothesesaboutauditoryperception:(1)AccuracywillincreaseasFWNPincreases.(2)
Accuracywillincreaseasthesignaltonoise(S/N)ratioincreases.(3)Accuracywillincreaseasobjective
prescribingfrequencyofthetargetnameincreasesand(4)Accuracywillincreaseassubjective
familiaritywiththetargetnameincreases.
Althoughfrequencyandneighborhoodeffectsarewellestablishedinthestudyofordinary
words,wesoughttoextendthisunderstandinginthreeways.First,weplannedtostudypropernames
fromlarge,closedsetlexicon(drugnames).Mostpreviousworkhasbeendoneinopensetconditions,
anditwasnotclearwhethertypicalneighborhoodeffectswouldbepresentinalarge,closedsetlexicon
condition(Clopper,Pisoni,&Tierney,2006;Sommers,Kirk,&Pisoni,1997).Second,wewishedtostudy
multisyllabicwordsratherthanthemonosyllabic(oftenconsonantvowelconsonant)wordsthathave
typicallybeenusedinstudiesofneighborhoodeffects.Thatrequiredustodevelopmeasuresof
similarityandnewmeasuresofFWNPformultisyllabicwords(Lambert,Lin,Toh,etal.,2005).Third,we
6
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
wishedtoseewhethertheneighborhoodeffectswouldbepresentinbothexperts(clinicians)and
novices(laypeople).Weexpectedneighborhoodeffectsinexpertsbecause,presumably,theywould
possesslexicalrepresentationsoflargenumbersofdrugnames,andtheserepresentationswould
competeinthemannerdescribedabove.Wethoughtneighborhoodeffectsmightbeattenuatedor
absentinlaypeople,whomaylackrepresentationsformostdrugnamesandhencewouldnot
experiencethecompetitionthatcausesneighborhoodeffects.
Evenifwewerenotmakinganyoriginalcontributiontothebasicscienceofauditoryperception,
webelievethattheNAMprovidesapowerfulconceptualandexperimentalframeworkfor
understandingdrugnameconfusion,onewhichcouldadvanceworldwideeffortstopredictandprevent
sucherrors.Thusthepresentpaperisofferedasanexemplaroftranslationalresearch,whereconcepts
wellknowntoonecommunityareappliedtoproblemsinadifferentdomain(Woolf,2008).
Weattemptedtocontrolforalargesetoffactorsthatmightbeassociatedwithnameconfusion
errorrates.Amongthesewasthetypeofname(brandorgeneric).Onemightexpectbrandnamestobe
moreconfusingsincetheyaretypicallyshorter(Lambert,Chang,&Lin,2001a),andshorternamestend
tohavemoreneighbors(Andrews,1997;Luce&Pisoni,1998;Storker,2004).Conversely,genericnames
useacommonsystemofstems(i.e.,suffixes)whichtendstoincreasetheiraveragesimilaritytoone
another,therebyincreasingtheirconfusability(Lambert,etal.,2001a).Eitherway,thedistinction
betweenbrandandgenericnamesisanimportantoneinpractice,sowedesignedourexperimentsto
takeitintoaccount.
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
MaterialsandMethods
Design
WeusedawithinparticipantsdesigntoexaminetheeffectofS/Nratio,prescribingfrequency,
subjectivefamiliarity,andsimilarityneighborhoodsontheabilitytocorrectlyidentifyspokendrug
names.AllparticipantsheardanequalnumberofdrugnamesatallthreeS/Nratiosandallofthedrug
namesappearedatallthreeS/Nratios.Threeversionsoftheexperimentensuredthatdrugnamesand
S/NratioswerecounterbalancedacrossparticipantsandthatparticipantsonlyheardoneS/Nratio
versionofeachdrug.
Participants
Participantswerepaidforparticipating.Theexperimentwasapprovedbytheinstitutional
reviewboardsattheUniversityofIllinoisatChicagoandatClevelandStateUniversity.Sixtyseven
pharmacistswererecruitedatthe2005meetingoftheAmericanPharmacistsAssociation,76family
physiciansatthe2005meetingoftheAmericanAssociationofFamilyPhysicians,and74nursesatthe
2005meetingoftheAcademyofMedicalSurgicalNurses.Duetoequipmentmalfunctionornonnative
languageaccents,5pharmacists,2physicians,and4nurseswereexcluded,leavingN=62pharmacists,
N=74physiciansandN=70nursesforthemainanalysis.Fortythreelaypeoplewererecruitedfromthe
communitysurroundingClevelandStateUniversity.1 Allclinicianswerelicensedandactivelypracticing
atthetimeofthedatacollection.NonnativespeakersofAmericanEnglish,lefthandedindividuals, 2
Infact60laypeoplewererecruited,butfundswereavailabletotranscribeonlythefirst43setsofresponsesfor
themainanalysis.
Itiscustomarytoexcludelefthandedparticipantsfromlanguageresearchbecauserighthanderstypically
representandprocesslanguageintheirlefthemisphere,andthereismorevariabilityinhowlefthanders
representandprocesslanguage.Hemisphericdifferencescouldhaveconsequencesforthespeedand/oraccuracy
withwhichlanguageisprocessed.So,toreduceunnecessarynoiseinthedata,lefthandersareoftenexcluded.
8
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
andanyonewithseriousspeechorhearingproblemswereexcluded(Gonzalez&McLennan,2007;
Hagmann,etal.,2006).
StimulusMaterials
Weselected99brandand99genericdrugnames.Namesandprescribingfrequency
informationweredrawnfromfoursources:(1)theNationalAmbulatoryMedicalCareSurvey
(NAMCS),(NationalCenterforHealthStatistics,2001a).(2)theNationalHospitalAmbulatoryMedical
CareSurvey(HAMCS)(NationalCenterforHealthStatistics,2001b), (3)theIMSHealthNational
PrescriptionDrugAudit(NPDA)(IMS,2001),and(4)theSolucientHospitalDrugUtilizationDatabase
(SolucientInc.,2003).
Afrequencyweightedneighborhoodprobability(FWNP)wascomputedforeachname,
accordingtoaproceduredescribedelsewhere(Lambert,Lin,Toh,etal.,2005).Nameswerestratifiedby
FWNP,withtenbrandandtengenericnamesfromeachdecileofFWNP.Onebrandnameandone
genericnamewereremovedtomakethetotalevenlydivisibleintothreeS/Nconditions.Thenames
wereprofessionallyrecordedbyatrainedphonetician/phonologist.Thesereferencepronunciations
werebasedonphonemictranscriptionsfromexperiencedclinicians,collectedforadifferentproject.
EachrecordednamewaseditedintoanAIFFaudiofile.Tomimicthebandwidthlimitationsoftelephone
audio,frequenciesbelow300Hzandabove3kHzwerethendigitallyfiltered(Rodman,2003).
Stimulusdegradation.Drugnameswereplayedbackagainstabackgroundofstandard20
speakerbabble(obtainedfromAuditecofSt.Louis).Thenoisewasplayedatameanamplitudeof65dB
andwasnotbandwidthlimited(Flynn,etal.,1996).Thestimuliwereplayedateither63dB,68dB,or
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
73dB,resultinginthreeS/Nconditionsof2dB,+3dB,and+8dBrespectively. 3 Asubgroupof10lay
participantscompletedtheexperimentintheclearwithnoaddednoise.
ExperimentalProcedure
Lettersweremailedtoattendeesinadvance,andindividualswereapproachedatthe
conventioncenterandasked:(a)iftheywerelicensed,practicingcliniciansintheU.S.and(b)ifthey
wereinterestedinparticipatinginastudyofdrugnameconfusion.Participantsconsented,completeda
demographicquestionnaire,andtookapuretonehearingthresholdtest(puretonethresholdsof50dB
orlowerwereaccepted).ParticipantswereseatedataMacintoshPowerBookcomputerandfittedwith
headphoneswithanattachedmicrophone(BeyerdynamicBT190).Theparticipantthenreadthe
instructions.Playbackofthe20speakerbabblewasinitiatedandcontinuedforthedurationofthe
experiment.
ThePsyScopeexperimentprogram(Cohen,MacWhinney,Flatt,&Provost,1993)wasusedto
runthemainexperiment.Thetaskbeganwith21practicetrialsandcontinuedwith198trialsinrandom
orderasthemainexperiment.Onenamewassubsequentlydroppedfromtheanalysisduetoanerrorin
recording.Oneachtrial,participantswereaskedtorepeatbackthenametheyhadheard.Spoken
responseswererecordedthroughthelaptopsbuiltinmicrophone.Aftercompletingthemain
experiment,participantsmovedtoanothercomputerandreadaloudthe198experimentalnamesas
theywerevisuallypresentedonacomputerscreen.Participantsratedtheirfamiliaritywitheachname
ona7pointscale(extremelyfamiliarextremelyunfamiliar).
Duringpilottestingonpracticingpharmacists,theseS/Nratiosproducederrorratesofroughly25%,50%,and
75%atthelow,mediumandhighS/Nlevels.
10
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
ScoringSpokenResponses
SpokenresponsesweretranscribedintotheARPAbet(Jurafsky&Martin,2000).phonetic
alphabetbyanexperiencedlinguist(e.g.,Zyvoxwastranscribedas/Z1AYV2AAKS/,wherethe
numerals1and2indicatestresslevel).Responseswerescoredascorrectorincorrectbycomparing
thetranscribedresponsestothereferencetranscriptionsforeachofthe197stimulusnames.Because
variationinpronunciationmadeverbatimmatchingtothereferencetranscriptiontoostrictacriterion,
wedevelopedadditionalprocedurestocapturelegitimatepronunciationvariants.Thefirstwasa
computerprogramthatappliedgenerallyacceptedrulesforpronunciationvariationtothereference
pronunciations.Forexample,influentspeech,unstressedvowelsoundsarereducedtotheschwa
sound.(Schwaisashortneutralvowelsound,themostcommonvowelsoundinEnglish,e.g.thefirst
phonemeintheword/again/.)Responseswerescoredascorrectiftheycouldbeproducedbyapplying
thevariationrulestothereferencepronunciations.Evenafterapplyingtheserules,therestillappeared
tobelegitimatevariantsthatwerebeingscoredasincorrect.Sothelinguistexaminedallincorrectly
scoredresponses,identifiedthosedeemedtobelegitimatevariants,andprovidedlinguisticjustification
foreachcase.Intheend,aresponsewasscoredascorrectifitmatchedthereferencepronunciation
exactly,ifitcouldbeautomaticallygeneratedasarulegeneratedvariant,orifitwasrecognizedbyour
expertinphoneticsasalegitimatevariant.
AnalysisPlan
ThegoalofouranalysiswastoquantifythemaineffectsofFWNP,noise,frequencyand
familiarityonaccuracyinauditoryperception.DescriptiveanalysesweredoneusingSASversion9.1and
totestthehypotheses,mixedeffectslogisticregressionmodelswerebuiltwithSuperMix(Hedeker&
Gibbons,2008).
11
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Thedependentvariablewasaccuracy.Wordscorrectlyidentifiedwerescoredas1,andwords
incorrectlyidentifiedwerescoredas0.Theindependentvariableswere:(1)theFWNPscore,a
continuousvariableontheinterval0to1,reflectingthepredictedprobabilityofidentification;(2)signal
tonoiseratio,anordinalvariablewiththreelevels(2dB,+3dB,+8dB);(3)familiarity,anordinal
variablereflectingaparticipantssubjectivefamiliaritywiththename(rangingfrom1to7);(4)
prescribingfrequency,acontinuousvariablerepresentingthelog(base10)ofthemaximumfrequency
fromourmultiplesourcesofprescribingfrequencydata;(5)phonemefrequency,acontinuousvariable
representingthefrequencyofagivenconsonantorvowelinagivenpositionintheword,(6)biphone
frequency,acontinuousvariablerepresentingthefrequencyofatwophonemesequenceinagiven
positionintheword(Storker,2004).Thecontrolvariableswere(1)participantdemographics,including
age,gender,race,practicecontext,professionandyearsofexperience;(2)puretonethreshold,eight
continuousvariablesreflectingthesensitivityofaparticipantshearingineachearat500Hz,1kHz,2kHz
and3kHz;(3)length,anordinalvariablereflectingthenumberofphonemesintheword;and(4)trial,an
ordinalvariablerepresentingthesequentialpositionofagivenresponsewithinthesetof198
responses.
Totestourhypotheses,webuiltalogisticregressionmodelforthecombinedgroupof
clinicians(pharmacists,physiciansandnurses)andaseparatemodelforlaypeople,treatingthe
interceptsasarandomeffect.Wealsocarriedoutsubgroupanalysesforeachclinicalprofession,the
resultsofwhicharepresentedinselectedtablesandfigureswherespacepermits.Weidentifiedthe
correctscaleforeachindependentandcontrolvariablebyplottingthelogoddsoferrorasafunctionof
eachvariable.Iftheseplotswerelinear,termswereenteredaslinear.Iftheplotrevealedanobvious
nonlinearity,weselectedascaletofitthenonlinearformofthefunction(Hosmer&Lemeshow,1989;
Selvin,1996).WeusedKleinbaumsmethodofbackwardeliminationtodecidewhichvariablesto
includeinthefinalmodel(Kleinbaum,1994).Thismethodbeginswithafullmodelandproceedsto
12
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
eliminateasmanytermsaspossible,usinglikelihoodratioteststodecidewhichtermscontribute
significantlytothemodelsfit.Allstatisticaltestsused=0.05.Finally,weexaminedthefitbetween
observedandpredictedaccuracyratesforeachofthe197stimulusnames.Observedratesweretaken
directlyfromthedata.Foreachparticipant,weusedtheparameterestimatesfromthefittedmodeland
covariatevaluesfromthedatatogenerateapredictedproportionofcorrectidentificationsforeach
nameaveragedacrossallparticipants.
Results
Eachofthe239participantsrespondedto197stimuli,producing47,083totalresponses.Mean
accuracyontheperceptiontaskwas32.27%(s.d.=7.94,range=12.18%49.75%,alsoseeTable5).
Roughly77%ofcorrectresponseswereidentifiedbyverbatimmatching,9.5%bycomputerscoringof
alternativepronunciationsand13.5%byexpertscoringofalternatives.Thiserrorrateisroughlytwo
ordersofmagnitudegreaterthanwhatonewouldexpectinrealworldpractice(Flynn,Barker,&
Carnahan,2003).Thetaskwasintentionallydesignedtobedifficultandtoproducehigherrorrates
because(a)wewereinterestedinstudyingtheerrorsthemselves,andwewantedalargesampleof
errorstoanalyze,and(b)duetostatisticalpowerconsiderations,thenaturalisticerrorrate(perhaps
0.13%)(Flynn,etal.,2003)wouldhavemadeitimpossibletodetectanydifferencesinerrorrateacross
experimentalconditions.Thetaskwasnotdesignedtoestimaterealworlderrorrates(thatisbest
achievedbydirectobservation).Rather,ourgoalwastounderstandthefactorsthataffectedtheerror
rateinataskthatwasanalogousto,butmoredifficultthan,therealworldtask.
Table1describesparticipantdemographics.Table2givesthemeansandstandarddeviationsof
continuouspredictorsforcorrectandincorrectresponsesaswellasresultsofbivariatetestsof
associationbetweeneachpredictorandthelogoddsofacorrectresponse.Table2providestheinitial
indicationofthebeneficialeffectsoffamiliarityandprescribingfrequencyonaccuracyforboth
cliniciansandlaypeople.Forclinicians,frequencyweightedneighborhoodprobability(FWNP)andword
13
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
lengthwerealsoassociatedwithincreasedaccuracy.ForlaypeopleFWNPhadnoimpact,andlonger
nameswereactuallyperceivedlessaccuratelythanshorternames.Thenumberofphonemeshelped
cliniciansbecauseeachadditionalphonemeprovideddisambiguatinginformationthataidedthemin
discriminatingbetweensimilaralternativesinmemory.Forlaypeople,mostofwhomwereunfamiliar
withthestimulusnames,thetaskwasreallyabottomupidentificationtask,andadditionalphonemes
madethattaskharder.AsimilaranalysiscouldbemadeinrelationtoFWNP.FWNPpredictedclinician
performancebecauseFWNPmeasurestheextenttowhichanameisfreeofcompetitionfromsimilar
neighbors.Butsincelaypeoplelackedmentalrepresentationsformostofthesewords,FWNPwasnota
relevantmeasureforthem.Individualdifferencevariableslikehearingacuity,ageorexperiencehad
littleornoimpactonaccuracy(especiallyforclinicians),whereaspropertiesoftheenvironmentorthe
stimulusnamesdid.
Table12abouthere.
Table3givestheproportionofcorrectandincorrectresponsesinrelationtothenominal
predictors,aswellasresultsoftestsofthebivariateassociationbetweenpredictorsandaccuracy.For
clinicians,accuracymorethantripledfromthenoisiesttothequietestcondition.Inlaypeople,the
effectwasevenstronger.Forclinicians,gender,typeofname(brandvs.generic),raceandpractice
contextweresignificantlyassociatedwithaccuracyinbivariateanalyses,butmanyoftheseeffectswere
confoundedwithtypeofclinicianandwerenotsignificantinmultivariateanalyses.
Table3abouthere.
Figure1illustratesthepowerfuleffectoffamiliarityonaccuracy.Performanceonthemost
familiarnameswasroughlythreetimesbetterthanontheleastfamiliarnames.Thisisaconsequenceof
thewellknownwordfrequencyeffect,whichpredictsthatfamiliarwordswillbeperceivedmore
accuratelythanunfamiliarwordsdueeithertohigherrestingactivationlevelsortodecisionbiasesthat
14
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
favorfamiliaritemsinmemory(Howes,1957).Figure2showstheequallydramaticeffectsofnoiseon
accuracy,againwithperformanceimprovingbyafactorofthreeforcliniciansandbyafactorofmore
than5forlaypeopleasS/Nratioincreasedfrom2dBto+8dB.Figure2alsoshowsthatwithoutnoise,
laypeopleperformedaswellaspharmacistsinthe+8dBcondition.Therewasacleargradientin
accuracy,withpharmacistsbeingmostaccurate,followedbyphysicians,nursesandlaypeople.Asmight
beexpected,performanceappearedtobedeterminedbyeachgroupsfamiliaritywithdrugnames
greaterfamiliarityledtohigheraccuracy.
Figures1and2abouthere.
Table4givestheparameterestimatesforthefinalrandomeffectlogisticregressionmodels.
Cliniciansandlaypeopleproduceddifferentpatternsofresults,presumablybecauseclinicianshad
lexicalrepresentationsformanyofthenames,butlaypeopledidnot.Forclinicians,thetaskinvolved
(bottomup)identificationand(topdown)discriminationamongsimilarcompetingalternatives.Forlay
people,itwasprimarilyabottomupidentificationtask.S/Nratiowasassociatedwithsignificantly
improvedaccuracyinparticipantsauditoryperceptionofdrugnames.Forclinicians,frequency
weightedneighborhoodprobabilitywasassociatedwithincreasedaccuracy.Nameswithfewerandless
frequentlyprescribedneighborswereheardmoreaccuratelythannameswithgreaternumbersofmore
frequentlyprescribedneighbors.Forbothlaypeopleandclinicians,familiardrugnameswereperceived
moreaccuratelythanunfamiliarnames,althoughtherelationshipwasnonlinearforclinicians.For
cliniciansbutnotforlaypeople,nameswithhighprescribingfrequencywereperceivedmoreaccurately
thannameswithlowprescribingfrequency.Forclinicians,accuracyincreasedasthenumberof
phonemespernameincreasedwhiletheoppositewastrueforlaypeople(forthereasondescribed
above).Forbothcliniciansandlaypeople,biphonefrequencywaspositivelyassociatedwithaccuracy.
Forclinicianstheeffectofbiphonefrequencywasmodifiedsomewhatbyphonemefrequency.Thus,the
15
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
presenceofcommonsoundpatternsmadenameseasierrecognize.Forclinicians,S/Nratiointeracted
significantlywithfamiliarity,asdidphonemeandbiphonefrequency.
Cliniciansgotslightlybetteratthetaskastheycompletedmoretrials.Brandnamedrugswere
perceivedlessaccuratelybycliniciansthangenericnames,evenaftercontrollingfornamelengthand
numberofneighbors.Insubgroupanalyses(detailsnotshown)thiseffectwasrestrictedtophysicians.
Physiciansandnurseshadloweraccuracyscoresthanpharmacists.Forlaypeople,ageandhearing
acuitywereassociatedwithaccuracy.Forclinicians,onlyleftearpuretonethresholdat2000Hzwas
associatedwithaccuracy.
Table5abouthere.
Toassessgoodnessoffitofthemodel,wecomparedtheobservedandpredictedpercent
correctforeachofthe197drugnames.Therootmeansquareerrorofpredictionrangedfrom15.3%to
18.5%(seeTable5).Severalnameswererarelyidentifiedcorrectly(e.g.,sutilains,Kira,sparfloxacin,and
tromethamine),whileotherswererarelymissed(e.g.,hydrochlorothiazide,Zithromax,codeine).The
modelsaccountedforbetween32%and49%ofthevarianceinaccuracyattheleveloftheindividual
name.
Figure4abouthere.
Substitutionerrors.Themostcommontypeoferrorwasanincorrectpronunciationofthe
stimulusname(90%),butoneintenerrorswasasubstitutionerror,wheretheresponsecorresponded
toanotherrealdrugname.Substitutionsproducepotentiallyharmfulwrongdrugerrors.Modelsof
spokenwordrecognition,includingNAM,predictthatrarenameswillbemisheardascommonnames
butnotviceversa.Wetestedthishypothesis.Overwhelmingly,substitutionerrorswentinthedirection
ofthemorefrequentlyprescribedname.Therewere4692substitutionerrorsoverall.In2963(63.2%)of
theseerrors,thesubstitutednamehadahigherprescribingfrequencythanthestimulusname.In1411
16
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
cases(30.1%),thesubstitutednamewasnotinourprescribingfrequencydatabases.Consideringonly
thecaseswithknownprescribingfrequency,errorswentinthedirectionofthemorefrequently
prescribeddrug90.31%ofthetime.Forclinicians,themeandifferenceinlogprescribingfrequency
betweenthesubstitutednameandthetargetnamewas2.40(s.d.=1.82),meaningthesubstitutedname
was,onaverage,prescribed250timesmorefrequentlythanthetarget.Forerrorsthatwentinthe
directionofthemorefrequentlyprescribedname,themeandifferenceinlogfrequencywas2.75.For
errorsthatwentinthedirectionofthelowerfrequencyname,themeandifferenceinlogprescribing
frequencywasonly1.22.Thissuggeststhatconfusionsgointhedirectionofthelesscommonnameonly
whentheprescribingfrequenciesarerelativelysimilar.Asthedifferenceinprescribingfrequency
increasessodoesthetendencyfortheerrorstogointhedirectionofthehigherfrequencyname(see
Figure3).
Discussion
Ourgoalwastoidentifyfactorsthataffectaccuracyinauditoryperceptionofdrugnames.
Resultsofourexperimentssupportedourthreespecifichypothesesandourgeneralmodelofauditory
perception:(1)Accuracy(forclinicians)wasinfluencedbythesimilarityneighborhoodofeachdrug
name(i.e.,bythesimilarityandprescribingfrequenciesofneighboringnames).Nameswithlesssimilar
andlesscommonlyprescribedneighborsweremoreaccuratelyperceivedthannameswithmoresimilar
andmorefrequentlyprescribedneighbors.Nameswithfewerandlessfrequentlyprescribedneighbors
weresubjecttolesscompetitionduringwordrecognitionandwerethereforeperceivedmore
accurately.(2)AccuracyincreasedasS/Nratioincreased.And(3)familiar,morefrequentlyprescribed
nameswereperceivedmoreaccuratelythanunfamiliar,lessfrequentlyprescribednames.
Someoftheseassociationsweremorecomplexthanwehadpredicted.Therelationship
betweenFWNPandaccuracywasquadraticforclinicians,andtherelationshipbetweenfamiliarityand
accuracywascubicforclinicians.Inbothcasesthisislikelybecausesomewords(thelowfamiliarity
17
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
names)weresimplyunknowntotheparticipants.Theseunknownwordswereprocessedasiftheywere
nonwords,andtheeffectsofmanyofourpredictorsonwordsandnonwordsareknowntodiffer.For
analogousreasons,wesawinteractionsbetweenfamiliarityandotherpredictors(e.g.,S/Nratio,
phonemefrequency,andbiphonefrequency).Theserelationshipsneedtobeexploredmorethoroughly
insubsequentwork.
Ourmodelsaccountedforasubstantialamountoftheobservedvarianceinitemlevelaccuracy.
Webelievesuchmodelswouldbeusefultopolicymakersanddrugcompaniesastheyevaluatethe
confusabilityofnewandexistingdrugnames.Wefoundconfusionstobeasymmetrical,with
substitutionsoverwhelminglygoinginthedirectionofthemorefrequentname.Thus,whenpolicy
makersconsiderthepotentialforharmrelatedtoanameconfusion,theymustconsiderthedirectionof
theerror(i.e.,whichdrugwillbemistakenforwhich).Morefamiliarandmorefrequentlyprescribed
drugswilltendtohavelowererrorrates,butinthinkingaboutharm,thismustbeweighedagainsttheir
highernumberofopportunitiesforerror(Lambert,etal.,2003).
Limitations
Wemeasuredsubjectivefamiliarityaftertheparticipantscompletedtheauditoryperception
task.Therefore,itispossiblethatourmeasureofsubjectivefamiliaritymayhavebeeninfluencedby
experienceintheexperimentitself.Althoughpossible,weexpectthatthiseffect,ifitexistedatall,was
small,especiallyincomparisontothelongtermprimingeffectsoflifetimeexperience(orlackthereof)
withthesestimulusnames.Previousworkonsubjectivefamiliaritysuggeststhatitisanaccurate
measureoflifetimeexposuretowordsandthatitisbetterthanobjectivefrequencyforpredictingword
recognitionperformance(Balota,Pilotti,&Cortese,2001;Carroll,1971;Gernsbacher,1984).
Westudiedaconveniencesampleofrighthanded,nativeEnglishspeakingcliniciansandlay
people.Westudiedonly197drugnamesoutofperhaps11,000ormoredrugnamesinuseintheU.S.
18
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Generalizationstoothercliniciansandotherdrugnamesshouldbemadecautiously.Thelevelandtype
ofnoiseweusedmaynotreflectrealworkingconditions,especiallybecausethenoisewasofaconstant
typeandamplitude. 4 Realworldcontextsexperienceunpredictablenoiseofvaryingtypesand
intensities.Thelackofforeignlanguageaccents,distractions,interruptionsandofclinicalcontextwas
alsounrealistic.Thisworkshouldbereplicatedundermorerealisticconditions.
CONCLUSION
Objectivelymeasurablepropertiesofdrugnamescanbeusedtopredicttheirconfusability.The
abilitytoaccuratelyidentifyspokendrugnamesisinfluencedbysignaltonoiseratio,subjective
familiarity,prescribingfrequency,andthesimilarityneighborhoodsofdrugnames.Tominimizeerrors,
ordertakersshouldbeabletoincreasethesourcevolume,andshouldhavenoisecancelling
headphonesorquietareaswheretheycantakeorders.Althoughnotdirectlysupportedbythese
experiments,itisgenerallyagreedthatspokencommunicationofdrugnamescanbemadesaferby
usingstrategieslikereadback,spellingoutthename,providingtheindicationforthedrugorusingboth
brandandgenericnames(especiallyforphysicianswhoweremorelikelytomisperceivebrandthan
genericnames).Thefindingthatlaypersons,withnobackgroundnoise,achievedrecognitionscores
aboutequaltothoseachievedbyexpertcliniciansoperatingundermoderatesignaltonoiseratios,
underscorestheimportanceofreducinglocalandremotebackgroundnoiseandgivingordertakersthe
abilitytoincreasevoicesignalloudness.Sinceunfamiliardrugnamesaremorelikelytobemisperceived
thanfamiliarnames,itmaybepossibletoreducedrugnameconfusionsbyincreasingclinicians
familiaritywithawiderarrayofdrugnames.Itmayalsobepossibletoimproveperformancebyhaving
peoplelearnthedistinguishingpartsofsimilardrugnamesthroughrepeateddiscriminationtraining.
Neverthelessitmaybeofinteresttonotethatanumberoftheprofessionalscommentedthatthebabblenoise
wasrealistic.
19
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
However,theeffectivenessofbothsuggestedinterventionscouldhaveunintendedconsequencesand
haveyettobeevaluated.Theexperimentsandmodelsdescribedaboveshouldproveusefulto
regulatoryagenciesanddrugmanufacturerswhomustevaluatetheconfusabilityofdrugnamespriorto
allowingthemonthemarket.
20
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
References
Allinson,T.T.,Szeinbach,S.L.,&Schneider,P.J.(2005).Perceivedaccuracyofdrugorderstransmitted
verballybytelephone.AmericanJournalofHealthSystemPharmacy,62,7883.
Andrews,S.(1997).Theeffectoforthographicsimilarityonlexicalretrieval:Resolvingneighborhood
conflicts.PsychonomicBulletin&Review,4(4),439461.
Aronson,J.K.(2004).Medicationerrorsresultingfromtheconfusionofsimilarnames.ExpertOpinDrug
Saf,3,167172.
Balota,D.,Pilotti,M.,&Cortese,M.(2001).Subjectivefrequencyestimatesfor2,938monosyllabic
words.MemoryandCognition,29(4),639647.
Camp,S.C.,Hailemeskel,B.,&Rogers,T.L.(2003).Telephoneprescriptionerrorsintwocommunity
pharmacies.AmericanJournalofHealthSystemPharmacy,60,613614.
Carroll,J.B.(1971).Measurementpropertiesofsubjectivemagnitudeestimatesofwordfrequency.
JournalofVerbalLearningandVerbalBehavior,10,722729.
Clopper,C.,Pisoni,D.,&Tierney,A.(2006).Effectsofopensetandclosedsettaskdemandsonspoken
wordrecognition.JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofAudiology,17(5),331349.
Cohen,J.D.,MacWhinney,B.,Flatt,M.,&Provost,J.(1993).PsyScope:Anewgraphicinteractive
environmentfordesigningpsychologyexperiments.BehavioralResearchMethods,Instruments,
andComputers,25(2),257271.
Dr.ordersLiquibidLithobiddispenseddeathresults.Caseonpoint:Cliffordv.GeritomMed.,Inc.,681
N.W.2d680MN(2004)(2004).NursLawReganRep,45(2),4.
Flynn,E.A.,Barker,K.N.,&Carnahan,B.J.(2003).Nationalobservationalstudyofprescription
dispensingaccuracyandsafetyin50pharmacies.JAmPharmAssoc(Wash),43(2),191200.
Flynn,E.A.,Barker,K.N.,Gibson,J.T.,&others(1996).Relationshipsbetweenambientsoundsand
accuracyofpharmacists'prescriptionfillingperformance.HumanFactors,38,614622.
Gernsbacher,M.A.(1984).Resolving20yearsofinconsistentinteractionsbetweenlexicalfamiliarity
andorthography,concreteness,andpolysemy.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,
113,256281.
Gonzalez,J.,&McLennan,C.(2007).Hemisphericdifferencesinindexicalspecificityeffectsinspoken
wordrecognition.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:HumanPerceptionandPerformance,33,
410424.
Grossberg,S.(1986).Theadaptiveselforganizationofserialorderinbehavior:Speech,languageand
motorcontrol.InE.C.Schwab&H.C.Nusbaum(Eds.),Patternrecognitionbyhumansand
machines:Vol.1,Speechperception(pp.187294).NewYork:AcademicPress.
Hagmann,P.,Cammoun,L.,Martuzzi,R.,Maeder,P.,Clarke,S.,Thiran,J.P.,etal.(2006).Hand
preferenceandsexshapethearchitectureoflanguagenetworksHumanBrainMapping,27,
828835.
Hedeker,D.,&Gibbons,R.D.(2008).SuperMixMixedEffectsModels,from
http://www.ssicentral.com/supermix/index.html
Hicks,R.,Becker,S.,&Cousins,D.(Eds.).(2008).MEDMARXdatareport.Areportontherelationshipof
drugnamesandmedicationerrorsinresponsetotheInstituteofMedicinescallforaction.
Rockville,MD:USPharmacopeia.
Hoffman,J.M.,&Proulx,S.M.(2003).Medicationerrorscausedbyconfusionofdrugnames.DrugSaf,
26(7),445452.
Hosmer,D.W.,&Lemeshow,S.(1989).Appliedlogisticregression.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.
Howes,D.H.(1957).OntherelationbetweentheintelligibilityandfrequencyofoccurrenceofEnglish
words.JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,29,296305.
21
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
IMSHealth(2008).2007channeldistributionbyU.S.dispensedprescriptionsRetrievedNovember17,
2008,from
http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/Document/Top
Line%20Industry%20Data/2007%20Channel%20Distribution%20by%20RXs.pdf
IMS,I.(2001).NationalPrescriptionAuditPlus.Chicago,IL:IMS.Inc.
Jurafsky,D.,&Martin,J.H.(2000).Speechandlanguageprocessing:Anintroductiontonaturallanguage
processing,computationallinguistics,andspeechrecognition.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Prentice
Hall.
Jusczyk,P.W.,&Luce,P.A.(2002).Speechperception.InH.Pashler&S.Yantis(Eds.),Stevens
HandbookofExperimentalPsychology,Volume1:SensationandPerception(3rd.ed.)(Vol.1,pp.
493536).NewYork:JohnWileyandSons.
Kleinbaum,D.G.(1994).Logisticregression:aselflearningtext.NewYork:SpringerVerlag.
Koczmara,C.,Jelincic,V.,&Perri,D.(2006).Communicationofmedicationordersbytelephone"writing
itright".Dynamics,17(1),2024.
Lambert,B.L.(1997).Predictinglookandsoundalikemedicationerrors.AmericanJournalofHealth
SystemPharmacy,54,11611171.
Lambert,B.L.(2008).Recentdevelopmentsinthepreventionanddetectionofdrugnameconfusion.In
R.W.Hicks,S.C.Becker&D.D.Cousins(Eds.),MEDMARXdatareport.Areportonthe
relationshipofdrugnamesandmedicationerrorsinresponsetotheInstituteofMedicinescall
foraction(pp.1015).Rockville,MD:CenterfortheAdvancementofPatientSafety,US
Pharmacopeia.
Lambert,B.L.,Chang,K.Y.,&Gupta,P.(2003).Effectsoffrequencyandsimilarityneighborhoodson
pharmacists'visualperceptionofdrugnames.SocialScience&Medicine,57,19391955.
Lambert,B.L.,Chang,K.Y.,&Lin,S.J.(2001a).Descriptiveanalysisofthedrugnamelexicon.Drug
InformationJournal,35,163172.
Lambert,B.L.,Chang,K.Y.,&Lin,S.J.(2001b).Effectoforthographicandphonologicalsimilarityon
falserecognitionofdrugnames.SocialScience&Medicine,52,18431857.
Lambert,B.L.,Donderi,D.,&Senders,J.(2002).Similarityofdrugnames:Objectiveandsubjective
measures.PsychologyandMarketing,19(78),641661.
Lambert,B.L.,Lin,S.J.,Gandhi,S.K.,&Chang,K.Y.(1999).Similarityasariskfactorindrugname
confusionerrors:Thelookalike(orthographic)andsoundalike(phonological)model.Medical
Care,37(12),12141225.
Lambert,B.L.,Lin,S.J.,&Tan,H.K.(2005).Designingsafedrugnames.DrugSafety(28),495512.
Lambert,B.L.,Lin,S.J.,Toh,S.,Luce,P.A.,McLennan,C.T.,LaVigne,R.,etal.(2005).Frequencyand
neighborhoodeffectsonauditoryperceptionofdrugnamesinnoise.AcousticalSocietyof
AmericaJournal,118(3),1955.Retrievedfrom
http://tigger.uic.edu/~lambertb/con_proceed/n05_173.pdf
Lambert,B.L.,Yu,C.,&Thirumalai,M.(2004).Asystemformultiattributedrugproductcomparison.
JournalofMedicalSystems,28(1),2954.
Luce,P.A.,Goldinger,S.D.,Auer,E.T.,Jr.,&Vitevitch,M.S.(2000).Phoneticpriming,neighborhood
activation,andPARSYN.PerceptionandPsychophysics,62,615625.
Luce,P.A.,&Pisoni,D.B.(1998).Recognizingspokenwords:Theneighborhoodactivationmodel.Ear&
Hearing,19(1),136.
NationalCenterforHealthStatistics(2001a).AmbulatoryHealthCareData:NAMCSDescription
RetrievedMay31,2001,2001,from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/ahcd/namcsdes.htm
22
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
NationalCenterforHealthStatistics(2001b).AmbulatoryHealthCareData:NHAMCSDescription
RetrievedMay31,2001,2001,from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/ahcd/nhamcsds.htm
PennsylvaniaPatientSafetyAuthority(2006).Improvingthesafetyoftelephoneorverbalorders.
Patientsafetyadvisory,3(2),1,37.Retrievedfrom
http://www.psa.state.pa.us/psa/lib/psa/advisories/v3n2june2006/junevol_3_no_2_article_b_sa
fety_of_telphone_orders.pdf
Rodman,J.(2003).TheeffectofbandwidthonspeechintelligibilityRetrievedJune17,2005,from
http://www.polycom.com/common/pw_cmp_updateDocKeywords/0,1687,1809,00.pdf
Selvin,S.(1996).Statisticalanalysisofepidemiologicaldata.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
SolucientInc.(2003).HospitaldrugutilizationdatabaseRetrievedMarch5,2004,from
http://www.solucient.com/solutions/Solucients_Databases.shtml
Sommers,M.S.,Kirk,K.I.,&Pisoni,D.B.(1997).Someconsiderationsinevaluatingspokenword
recognitionbynormalhearing,noisemaskednormalhearingandcochlearimplantusersI:The
effectsofresponseformat.EarandHearing,18,8999.
Storker,H.L.(2004).Methodsforminimizingtheconfoundingeffectsofwordlengthintheanalysisof
phonotacticprobabilityandneighborhooddensity.JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearing
Research,47,14541468.
TheJointCommission(2008).Accreditationprogram:Ambulatoryhealthcare,NationalPatientSafety
Goals.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/979098FA74FD4F25
AF41EDD48FBD300E/0/AHC_NPSG.pdf
U.S.FoodandDrugAdministration(2008).PDUFApilotprojectproprietarynamereview.Federal
Register,74(189),5080650809.
Vitevitch,M.S.,&Luce,P.A.(1999).Probabilisticphonotacticsandneighborhoodactivationinspoken
wordrecognition.JournalofMemoryandLanguage,40,374408.
Vivian,J.V.(2004).Thirdpartyactions.USPharmacist,11,7478.
Wakefield,D.S.,Ward,M.M.,Groath,D.,Schwichtenberg,T.,Magdits,L.,Brokel,J.,etal.(2008).
Complexityofmedicationrelatedverbalorders.AmericanJournalofMedicalQuality,23(1),7
17.
Wiener,S.W.,Liu,S.,Nelson,L.S.,&Hoffman,R.S.(2004).NutropinorNeupogen?Amedicationerror
resultinginleukocytosis.AnnalsOfPharmacotherapy,38(4),721721.
Woolf,S.(2008).Themeaningoftranslationalresearchandwhyitmatters.JAMA,299(2),211.
23
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Table1.Demographiccharacteristics
Variable
Age
Gender
Male
Female
Race
Asian
Pacific
Islander
Black
White
Multiracial
Other
PracticeContext
Hospital
Clinic
Retail
Community
Other
Pharmacists
(n=62)
Physicians
(n=74)
Nurses
(n=70)
LayPeople
(n=43)
39.1(10.7)
44.3(10.9)
43.2(7.7)
29.8(12.3)
26
36
3
1
40.9
58.1
4.8
1.6
50
24
16
0
67.6
32.4
21.9
0
1
69
1
0
1.4
98.6
1.4
0
11
32
0
3
25.6
74.4
0
7.1
5
50
1
2
7
13
33
9
0
8.1
80.7
1.6
3.2
11.3
21.0
53.2
14.5
0.0
2
54
0
1
6
61
0
0
7
2.7
74.0
0
1.4
8.1
82.4
0
0
9.5
0
66
1
2
69
1
0
0
0
0
94.3
1.4
2.9
98.6
1.4
0
0
0
11
24
4
1
26.2
57.1
9.5
0.2
24
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Table2.Mean(standarddeviation)ofcontinuousindependentvariablesforcorrectandincorrect
responses
Clinicians(N=206)
Variable
Incorrect
Correct
(n=26776)
(n=13806)
R500Hz
25.92 (8.32)
26.07 (8.60)
L500Hz
24.12 (10.91)
R1000Hz
LayPeople(N=33)
Incorrect
Correct
(n=5111)
(n=1390)
0.44
12.94 (4.74)
12.65 (4.87)
0.26
23.92 (10.53)
0.37
11.91 (4.56)
11.50 (4.63)
0.09
17.72 (7.10)
17.43 (7.06)
0.05
8.02 (5.93)
8.07 (6.35)
0.87
L1000Hz
16.03 (7.45)
15.86 (7.42)
0.26
6.92 (5.73)
6.45 (5.83)
0.14
R2000Hz
10.85 (8.75)
10.71 (8.17)
0.38
4.35 (6.41)
3.83 (6.40)
0.13
L2000Hz
10.89 (8.97)
10.64 (8.49)
0.15
4.66 (6.76)
4.83 (6.63)
0.57
R3000Hz
10.96 (10.47)
11.14 (10.12)
0.45
3.37 (8.19)
2.49 (7.94)
0.04
L3000Hz
11.72 (11.10)
11.73 (10.89)
0.95
5.20 (8.19)
4.97 (7.86)
0.65
PhonemeFreq.
-0.11 (1.19)
-0.01 (1.10)
0.00
-0.14 (1.21)
0.07 (1.01)
0.00
BiphoneFreq.
-0.14 (1.03)
0.04 (1.02)
0.00
-0.14 (1.03)
0.08 (1.01)
0.00
Age
42.43 (10.13)
42.18 (10.06)
0.25
30.62 (12.42)
30.41 (11.86)
0.81
Experience
14.79 (10.19)
14.63 (10.15)
0.42
Familiarity
2.73 (2.36)
4.57 (2.65)
0.00
1.61 (1.44)
2.63 (2.28)
0.00
FWNP
0.53 (0.34)
0.60 (0.36)
0.00
0.55 (0.35)
0.56 (0.35)
0.34
RxFrequency
3.14 (1.65)
3.94 (1.76)
0.00
3.37 (1.75)
3.58 (1.65)
0.00
No.Phonemes
8.06 (2.29)
8.25 (2.80)
0.00
8.25 (2.53)
7.67 (2.22)
0.00
121.95 (57.13)
123.62 (57.22)
0.01
99.40 (547.09)
100.22 (57.39)
0.63
Trial
Note.R500Hzisthelowestnumberofdecibelsatwhicha500Hztonecouldstillbeheardintheright
ear.L500Hzistheleftear,etc.FWNPisfrequencyweightedneighborhoodprobability.RxFrequencyis
thelog(base10)ofthenationalprescribingfrequencyofthestimulusnames.Mixedeffectslogistic
regressionmodelswerebuiltwithSupermixwithonlyaninterceptandoneindependentvariableinthe
model.PvaluescomefromWaldtestsontheparameterestimateforthevariableinquestion.Lay
resultsareforn=33layparticpantsintheconditionwithbackgroundnoise.Therewere197
25
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
observationsforeachparticipant,sotherewere12,214pharmacistresponses,14,578physician
responses,and13,790nurseresponses.Seetextfordetails.
26
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Table3.Percentcorrectandincorrectresponsesbynominalcovariates
Variable
Clinicians(N=206)
%Cor. %Inc.
LayPeople(N=33)
%Cor.
%Inc.
0.0000
S/NRatio
0.0000
2dB
16.03
83.97
6.83
93.17
+3dB
36.10
63.90
21.32
78.68
+8dB
49.93
50.07
35.99
64.01
0.0000
Gender
0.31
Male
36.09
63.91
23.13
76.87
Female
32.78
67.22
20.91
79.09
0.0000
NameType
0.83
Brand
31.30
68.70
21.27
78.73
Generic
36.76
63.24
21.49
78.51
0.0000
Race
0.09
White
34.44
65.56
22.73
77.27
NonWhite
32.05
67.95
19.76
80.24
0.0000
Context
Hospital
30.28
69.72
Clinic
35.42
64.58
Retail
38.70
61.30
Other
36.88
63.12
Note.Probabilities(P)comefromWaldtestsonparameterestimatesgeneratedbySuperMixmixed
effectsregressionmodelswithonlyonepredictorvariableenteredatatime.Layresultsareforn=33lay
particpantsintheconditionwithbackgroundnoise.Adashindicatesthatvariblewasnotincludedinthe
analysis.
27
Pharmacists
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Physicians
Nurses
LayPeople
Figure1.Auditoryperceptionaccuracyasafunctionoffamiliarity.Foreachleveloffamiliarity,thedark
barrepresentsthepercentofincorrectresponsesasapercentofthetotalnumberofresponsesforthat
participantgroup.Thelightbarrepresentsthepercentofcorrectresponsesatthatfamiliaritylevel.The
linerepresentsthepercentcorrectatagivenleveloffamiliarity.Forlaypeople,dataareshownonly
fromparticipantsintheconditionwithbackgroundnoise.
28
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Figure2.Effectofsignalstrengthonaccuracyforpharmacists,physicians,nursesandlaypeople.Noise
wasplayedatmean65dBamplitudeforallparticipantgroups,exceptwherenotedforlaypeople.Sothe
threesignaltonoiseconditionscorrespondedto2dB,+3dBand+8dB.Laypeopleweretheonly
subgrouptestedwithoutnoise.
29
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Table4.Parameterestimatesforrandomeffectslogisticregressionmodelofaccuracyinauditory
perceptionforcliniciansandlaypeople
Variable
Clinicians(n=206)
OR(95%CI)
LayPeople(n=33)
OR(95%CI)
Intercept
0.21(0.150.30)
0.0000
0.03(0.10.8)
0.0000
S/NRatio(dB)
1.23(1.221.24)
0.0000
1.23(1.211.25)
0.0000
0.83(0.411.68)
0.31(0.061.60)
4.34(1.5112.53)
0.60
0.16
0.01
FWNP
FWNP2
FWNP3
RxFrequency
RxFrequency2
0.99(0.941.04)
1.02(1.011.02)
0.69
0.0000
Familiarity
Familiarity2
Familairity3
2.09(1.652.66)
0.83(0.780.90)
1.02(1.011.02)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.40(1.351.46)
0.0000
Num.Phonemes
Num.Phonemes2
0.82(0.780.86)
1.01(1.011.01)
0.0000
0.0000
0.92(0.890.94)
0.0000
PhonemeFreq.
BiphoneFreq.
0.73(0.680.78)
1.69(1.581.82)
0.0000
0.0000
1.29(1.201.37)
0.0000
0.995(0.9930.998)
1.04(1.031.06)
0.95(0.930.96)
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
Nonwhite
Trial
Brand
0.79(0.700.89)
1.0009(1.00051.0013)
0.93(0.880.98)
0.0001
0.0000
0.01
Physician
Nurse
0.91(0.821.01)
0.66(0.590.74)
0.08
0.0000
1.11(1.041.17)
0.999(0.9980.999)
0.0007
0.002
0.96(0.940.99
1.03(1.011.05)
0.97(0.950.99)
1.02(1.001.04)
0.98(0.960.99)
1.02(1.001.04)
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
FamiliarityxS/NRatio
FamiliarityxPhonemeFreq.
FamiliarityxBiphoneFreq.
Age
Age2
R500Hz
R1000Hz
R2000Hz
L2000Hz
R3000Hz
L3000Hz
0.99(0.980.99)
30
0.0000
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Note.FWNP=frequencyweightedneighborhoodprobability.RxFrequencyisthelogbase10ofthe
maximumfrequencyobservedacross4differentprescriptiondatabases.S/Nratioisthesignaltonoise
ratio.Forrace,thereferencegroupwasandwhite(Caucasian).R500Hzisthelowestnumberofdecibels
atwhicha500Hztonecouldstillbeheardintherightear.L500Hzistheleftear,etc.Adashmeansthe
variablewasnotsignificantinthemodel.Superscriptnumbersareexponents,e.g.,FWNP2=FWNP
squared.Seetextfordetails.
31
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Table5.Summaryofauditoryperceptionresultsforpharmacists,physicians,nursesandlaypeople.
Variable
AllClinicians
(n=206)
34.23(6.82)
13.7149.75
17.23%
Pharmacists
(n=62)
39.14(5.83)
16.7549.75
18.5%
Physicians
(n=74)
34.46(5.52)
19.847.2
17.5%
Nurses
(n=70)
29.02(5.15)
13.7138.58
17.8%
LayPeople
(n=33)
21.38(5.36)
12.1830.46
15.3%
Accuracy(%)
Mean(s.d.)
Range
GoodnessofFit
Rootmean
squarederror
Mean
14.22%
15.5%
14.7%
14.6%
11.7%
absolute
error
0.47
0.49
0.48
0.42
0.32
R2predicted
vs.observed
SubstitutionErrors
Number(%of
4449(10.96)
1780(14.6)
1404(9.66)
1265(9.17)
243(3.73)
allresponses)
%ofincorrect
16.62
23.95
14.69
12.92
4.75
responses
No.with
3128
1266
975
887
153
knownfreq.
No.(%)in
2849(91.1)
1163(91.9)
883(90.6)
803(90.5)
114(74.5)
directionof
higher
frequency
name
Mean(s.d.)
2.40(1.80)
2.57(1.80)
2.27(1.76)
2.30(1.83)
1.54(2.06)
logfreq.
difference
between
targetand
substituted
name
Note.Forlaypeople,dataareshownonlyparticipantsintheconditionwithbackgroundnoise.
32
ErrorinSpokenMedicationOrders
Pharmacists
Physicians
Nurses
LayPeople
Figure3.Directionofsubstitutionerrorsasafunctionofdifferenceinlogprescribingfrequency.Thebar
chartisahistogramoffrequencydifferencesbetweenstimulusnamesandsubstitutednames.The
bottompartofeachverticalcolumnrepresentsthenumberoftimesthesubstitutednamewasless
frequentlyprescribedthanthestimulusname(leftaxis).Thetopportionrepresentsthenumberof
timesthesubstitutednamewasmorefrequentlyprescribedthanthestimulusname.Theline
representsthepercentofsubstitutionerrorswhereinthesubstitutednamewasmorefrequently
prescribedthanthestimulusname(rightaxis).Thegraphsshowthatwhenonenameismistakenfor
another,thesubstitutednameisalmostalwaysmorefrequentlyprescribedthanthenamewhichwas
misheard.Theprobabilityoferrorisnotasymmetricalfunctionofsimilarity.Relativelylowfrequency
namesareliabletobemisheardastheirhigherfrequencyneighbors,butnotviceversa.
33