I agree Tom, calling it a ‘computer error’ suggests some sort of large glitch in the system – which, in itself would be problematic if there wasn’t some way of flagging such an error as it happened so that it could be quickly identified and rectified. However, this article suggests that the process made it easy for “human error” to occur on a regular basis, or, rather, almost inevitable that these errors would occur on a regular basis. The fact that feedback wasn’t listened to makes this case worse, as the error was seemingly allowed to continue, unchecked. I would argue there’s certainly a design issue here.

Relevant snippet from the article: “A source at Newcastle Hospitals told the BBC that consultants had raised issues about the electronic patient record system for years, complaining it was slow and hard to use, but had not been listened to.

In a letter sent to staff about the problem, and seen by the BBC, the Newcastle Trust explains that letters drafted by one member of staff have to be signed off by a second clinician – who must change their user status to “signing clinician” – before they can be sent.

If that doesn’t happen, letters end up in a consultant’s document folder and remain unsent until they are signed off correctly.”