Barcode Scanning Medications the Case

Barcode Scanning Medications The Case Against Barcode Scanning of Medications This paper argues the use of barcode scanning for medications used in hospitals is unnecessary and burdensome, because it requires more work and additional training for nurses entering the information, and does not provide an effective solution in the event technology would fail and nurses or doctors could not access a patient's medication database. Recently researchers and healthcare organizations have proposed barcode scanning of medications as an effective solution to medication errors in hospital settings.

Typically this information is recorded by hand and entered into patient's charts. The FDA in 2002 proposed a rule requiring bar codes for certain product labels, and suggested healthcare professionals use scanning equipment to ensure drugs are administered in proper amounts to patients and given to patients in appropriate time frames (Meadows, 2003). Unfortunately as technology advances so too does the burden placed on nurses to learn new protocols and procedures for delivering medications to patients.

Stephens (1992) suggests that entering medications into a scanning system will increase, not decrease the risk for error and possibly represent an invasion of patient's rights to privacy. This argument is soundly based on recent reports of stolen computers and other problems that could result in a leaking of a consumer or patient's private health information. Files stored on paper are less likely to be stolen "en masse" than files stored electronically.

Further, technology often fails, and there are not any defined systems in place that will help nurses administer medication properly in the event the medication database failed. Implementation of codes may also suggest a false sense of security that medication errors will not happen (Bayley & Berlinger, 2006). Thus, nurses may be subject to even more error or careless activity due to this false sense of security.

Meadows (2003) and others (Virtual Medical World, n.d.) argue that barcode scanning of medications in hospitals could reduce the risk of medication errors by requiring nurses and doctors to enter orders into a computer system instead of recording them on paper. As of the time of her analysis, only 3% of hospitals were using this method to regulate medication practices.

Despite this "promising" observation, other studies including a study conducted by Brigham Women's Hospital found that the benefits of risk reduction declined dramatically only if bar code configurations are implemented precisely, which is not always the case, and may require a significant learning curve (placing even more pressure on nurses). According to the BWH study, in some cases an increase of potential adverse drug events was possible, especially when every dose of medications was not scanned.

For barcode scanning technology to work as designed, every medication dose would have to be scanned before it reached the patient (BWH, 2002). Given the current shortage of nurses available to perform routine tasks in hospital care settings, it is likely that multiple errors might occur from a nurse not having time to or forgetting to scan every dose a patient would take before medicating the patient.

Some reports acknowledge that technological systems as barcode scanning are "cumbersome" and may "cause an unreasonable increase in time needed to administer medications" with some hospitals reporting an 8-second delay in medication recognition when nurses used a database instead of manual methods (Cipriano, 2002). Conclusion The use of barcode scanning for medication processing and administration is not the cure-all for medication errors. Without proper training and 100% perfect use and implementation uniformly among staff, the benefits associated with its use outweigh the increased costs and educational burden associated with implementing new technology.

References Bayley,.