OBJECTIVE To compare the experiences of e-prescribing users and nonusers regarding prescription safety and workload and to assess the use of information from two e-prescribing standards (for medication history and formulary and benefit information), as they are implemented. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey of physicians who either had installed or were awaiting installation of one of two commercial e-prescribing systems. MEASUREMENTS Perceptions about medication history and formulary and benefit information among all respondents, and among e-prescribing users, experiences with system usability, job performance impact, and amount of e-prescribing. RESULTS Of 395 eligible physicians, 228 (58%) completed the survey. E-prescribers (n = 139) were more likely than non-e-prescribers (n = 89) to perceive that they could identify clinically important drug-drug interactions (83 versus 67%, p = 0.004) but not that they could identify prescriptions from other providers (65 versus 60%, p = 0.49). They also perceived no significant difference in calls about drug coverage problems (76 versus 71% reported getting 10 or fewer such calls per week; p = 0.43). Most e-prescribers reported high satisfaction with their systems, but 17% had stopped using the system and another 46% said they sometimes reverted to handwriting for prescriptions that they could write electronically. The volume of e-prescribing was correlated with perceptions that it enhanced job performance, whereas quitting was associated with perceptions of poor usability. CONCLUSIONS E-prescribing users reported patient safety benefits but they did not perceive the enhanced benefits expected from using standardized medication history or formulary and benefit information. Additional work is needed for these standards to have the desired effects.

Domains identified can be used to develop a culturally relevant instrument in Singapore.

Efforts to expand access to cochlear implants may be impeded by financial incentives. Facilitating access for Medicare and Medicaid patients could require changes in payment policies.

Whether personal malpractice experience is part of a tort signal prompting physicians to practice defensively is unclear. To explore this issue further, we assessed how physicians' malpractice experiences affect clinical decision making. We surveyed 1,540 physicians from four specialty groups (cardiologists, surgeons, obstetrician-gynecologists, and internists) using specialty-specific clinical scenarios. Physicians were in active private practice, were covered by a single malpractice insurer for five or more years, and worked in an eastern state. The net response rate was 54 percent (835 of 1,540) but measurable bias, based on practice characteristics, was negligible. Physicians evaluated clinical scenarios that were designed to maximize potential for finding positive defensive practices (extra tests and procedures). Then they rated how various factors influenced their decisions and answered questions on practice attitudes. The study compared management and testing recommendations among physicians with varying levels of malpractice exposure, which we defined in three separate ways. Participants were unaware of the study hypotheses. Physicians with greater malpractice experience showed no systematic differences in initial management choice or subsequent test recommendations. For example, similar percentages of internists in the top and bottom claims rate quartiles admitted a patient with syncope (78 percent versus 73 percent; p = 42), discharged a patient with nonspecific chest pain (80 percent versus 80 percent; p = .88), and delayed surgery in a patient with nonspecific changes on a electrocardiograph (58 percent versus 68 percent; p = .18). Attitudes about malpractice also did not differ with varying malpractice experience. Personal malpractice experience is not a predominant factor in the tort signal that prompts physicians to engage in defensive practices, to the extent that such practices exist.

Our analyses provide evidence of the reliability and validity of CAHPS Hospice Survey measure scores. Results also highlight important opportunities to improve the quality of hospice care, particularly with regard to addressing symptoms of anxiety and sadness, discussing side effects of pain medicine, and keeping family informed of the patient's condition.