What are best practices for medication barcode scanning?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Best practice guidance for barcode medication administration recommends use of the system consistently as a system-wide safety process that verifies both the patient and the actual medication immediately before administration, rather than as a documentation step that can be completed afterward or bypassed. Barcode verification should be used in inpatient, emergency, procedural, infusion, dialysis, radiology, perioperative, and other outpatient areas, with proxy scanning from labels, paperwork, saved packages, or empty containers prohibited. Pharmacy staff should test barcodes when products are received, ensure the barcode selected for scanning accurately identifies the finished product, visually investigate products that fail to scan, and never issue a replacement barcode label without verifying the medication. Additionally, organizations should establish a clear escalation procedure for scanning failures, maintain reliable and clean equipment and proper training. Barcode compliance, bypasses, alerts, scanning failures, and missed medications should be monitored. Together, these measures preserve barcode scanning as an independent verification safeguard and reduce medication errors.
Background

Recent 2026 guidance from the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) addresses barcode use across several medication-safety practices. The ISMP recommends barcode verification before every medication and vaccine administration, including settings where it is often underused. These areas include emergency departments, perioperative areas, infusion clinics, dialysis centers, radiology, labor and delivery, cardiac catheterization laboratories, and other outpatient locations. ISMP supports this recommendation with reports of wrong-drug, wrong-dose, and wrong-patient errors, particularly involving products with similar names, doses, packaging, label graphics, or cap colors. Because barcode medication administration can detect these errors at the point of administration, limiting its use to inpatient units leaves important safety gaps. Organizations should regularly evaluate scanning compliance, bypassed alerts, and acknowledged alerts to determine whether the technology is being used consistently and effectively. [1]

The document also provides more specific recommendations for pharmacy operations. Pharmacy should test the barcodes of all newly received products before they reach clinical users so unreadable, absent, duplicate, or incorrectly configured barcodes can be identified before they interrupt patient care. Pharmacy should also review the number, type, and placement of barcodes on product labels and overwraps because multiple possible scan points can cause confusion, scanning of the wrong barcode, or inadvertent bypass of alerts. For commercially available premixed products, ISMP recommends omitting pharmacy-generated barcodes from pharmacy-applied labels so clinicians are required to scan the barcode on the actual product. [1]

For compounded sterile preparations, the document introduces an important exception to the preference for scanning the manufacturer’s barcode. When a pharmacy compounds a patient-specific sterile preparation using a commercially manufactured diluent bag, the manufacturer’s barcode may identify only the original diluent rather than the medication that was added. When possible, the pharmacy label should therefore cover the manufacturer’s barcode and direct the clinician to scan the barcode on the patient-specific compounded-product label. This helps prevent the diluent bag from being incorrectly verified as the finished preparation. Similarly, 503B outsourcing facilities should position barcodes so end users are clearly directed to scan the barcode representing the actual compounded preparation. Thus, the guiding principle is to scan the barcode that accurately identifies the finished product being administered, which may be either the manufacturer’s barcode or a pharmacy-generated patient-specific barcode, depending on the product. [1]

The guidance also expands the recommendations concerning proxy scanning and patient identification. Like the earlier article, the document calls for a formal escalation process when a barcode cannot be scanned and emphasizes eliminating proxy scans. However, it extends this concept to patient identification by recommending that organizations limit and monitor reprinting of patient identification bands, prevent the use of reprinted bands as proxy scan sources, and determine whether the system can restrict scanning to the patient’s actual wristband rather than barcodes on labels, paperwork, or other patient-specific materials. Medication barcodes should likewise never be scanned from saved packaging or empty infusion bags. Organizations should examine and correct the workflows that encourage these practices rather than treating them solely as individual noncompliance. [1]

Finally, the document provides additional recommendations regarding technology reliability and performance monitoring. Information technology teams should proactively identify and resolve connectivity problems, slow system responses, and other failures that prevent barcode medication administration software from functioning as intended. Technology vendors should optimize the language and sounds associated with barcode alerts, and organizations should educate users about what each alert means to reduce incorrect overrides and alert fatigue. Automated dispensing cabinet vendors should also provide an option to require scanning of each individual dose during stocking or restocking. Organizations should routinely analyze scanning adherence, bypass frequency, alerts generated and acknowledged, and other performance measures. These data can identify technical failures and unsafe workarounds, guide targeted interventions, reinforce accountability, and determine whether barcode-safety strategies remain effective over time. [1]

Earlier ISMP guidance similarly emphasizes that barcode medication administration (BCMA) systems can reduce medication-administration errors, but their effectiveness depends on correct use and a clearly defined escalation process when scanning fails. Unsafe workarounds include administering a medication despite an unsuccessful scan, scanning after administration, or proxy scanning a barcode from a different source, such as an empty hanging bag, a separately supplied label, or another product. These practices may reflect poorly configured technology, workflow barriers, inadequate staff education, or insufficient understanding of the risks. Additional guidance from the ISMP recommends that medication-safety committees investigate the practices and system conditions that promote workarounds and modify workflows, technology configurations, and training accordingly. [2]

Pharmacy should test new product barcodes before distribution, and practitioners should preferentially scan the manufacturer’s barcode printed directly on the medication container because this verifies the actual product in hand. If a barcode fails, the practitioner should stop and compare the product with the medication administration record to confirm the correct patient, medication, and administration time and determine whether the order has been changed or discontinued. A pharmacist should then visually inspect the medication and verify that it matches the order; sending a replacement label alone is not considered safe, and pharmacy labels should be applied only by pharmacy personnel to pharmacy-prepared products. Organizations should establish a formal escalation procedure that specifies when and how barcode problems are reported, who evaluates and monitors them, and why proxy scanning is prohibited. [2]

Although published in 2004, guidance from the Veterans Health Administration continues to provide relevant and practical recommendations. The guidance describes BCMA as an interdisciplinary safety system that requires continuous evaluation and improvement, rather than simply the installation of scanning technology. Hospitals should establish a standing committee involving nursing, pharmacy, information technology, and biomedical personnel; obtain regular feedback from frontline staff; train all medication-administration personnel; cross-train pharmacists on nursing BCMA functions; and maintain accessible resources that communicate known problems and direct staff to the appropriate troubleshooting contact. [3]

Paper and electronic medication-administration records should not be maintained in parallel beyond a brief transition because duplicate systems can cause missed doses, duplicate doses, and documentation gaps. Planned downtimes should occur during low-volume periods using defined contingency procedures. Hospitals should also maintain readily available replacement scanners, computers, batteries, and related equipment and establish monitored procedures for routinely cleaning BCMA equipment. [3]

At administration, the nurse should scan the patient’s wristband and the medication immediately before giving the dose to help verify the patient, drug, dose, route, and time. Discrepancies should be resolved before administration, with pharmacy notified of missing or incorrect medication barcodes. The person administering the medication should personally document it at the time of administration. Allergy information displayed in BCMA should be confirmed via another source, as electronic allergy information may be inaccurate or overlooked. [3]

Printed medication-overview worksheets may support shift planning but should not be used to administer or document medications because they can quickly become outdated; the electronic record should therefore be refreshed regularly. Nurses should review missed-medication reports once per shift through a nonpunitive process, and organizations should actively notify nurses of new urgent orders rather than relying on repeated manual record checks. Worn, missing, or inaccurate wristbands should be replaced promptly, with periodic replacement considered in long-term care and wristband printers made readily available on patient-care units. [3]

These recommendations were informed by Veterans Health Administration observations, simulations, surveys, and stakeholder interviews. However, the recommendations were not directly evaluated for their effects on patient outcomes and may require adaptation to different hospitals and newer BCMA systems. [3]

Background References: [1] Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Targeted Medication Safety Best Practices for Hospitals. Published March 4, 2026. Accessed September 2, 2026. https://home.ecri.org/blogs/ismp-resources/targeted-medication-safety-best-practices-for-hospitals
[2] ​​Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Implement strategies to prevent persistent medication errors and hazards: 2024. Published March 21, 2024. Accessed September 2, 2026. https://home.ecri.org/blogs/ismp-alerts-and-articles-library/implement-strategies-to-prevent-persistent-medication-errors-and-hazards-2024
[3] Patterson ES, Rogers ML, Render ML. Fifteen best practice recommendations for bar-code medication administration in the Veterans Health Administration. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30(7):355-365. doi:10.1016/s1549-3741(04)30041-9
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 2 studies investigating the researchable question:

What are best practices for medication barcode scanning?

Level of evidence

C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-2 for your response.


Effect of Bar-Code Technology on the Safety of Medication Administration
Design

Before-and-after, quasi-experimental study

N= 14,041 medication administrations observed

Objective To assess the impact of bar-code eMAR technology on the rates of medication administration and transcription errors, and potential adverse drug events
Study Groups

Units without bar-code eMAR (n= 6723 doses)

Units with bar-code eMAR (n= 7318 doses)

Inclusion Criteria Medication administrations and order transcriptions observed in 35 adult medical, surgical, and intensive care units in a 735-bed tertiary academic medical center
Exclusion Criteria Oncology units were excluded due to complex protocols and specialized workflows
Methods The study involved direct observation of medication administration and order transcription before and after the implementation of bar-code eMAR technology. Errors were classified as timing or nontiming errors, and potential adverse drug events were identified. Nurses received training in medication scanning and eMAR use, with continuous support during the rollout
Duration February to October 2005
Outcome Measures

Primary: Rate of errors in medication administration and transcription

Secondary: Rate of potential adverse drug events

Baseline Characteristics   Units without Bar-Code eMAR Units with Bar-Code eMAR
Doses observed 6723/14,041 (47.9%) 7318/14,041 (52.1%)
Medical unit 2008/6723 (29.9%) 2232/7318 (30.5%)
Surgical unit 3528/6723 (52.5%) 3856/7318 (52.7%)
Intensive care unit 1187/6723 (17.7%) 1230/7318 (16.8%)
Results   Units without Bar-Code eMAR Units with Bar-Code eMAR Relative Change in Error Rate p-Value
Total errors 776 (11.5%) 495 (6.8%) −41.4% <0.001
Potential Adverse Drug Events 213 (3.1%) 114 (1.6%) −50.8% <0.001
Adverse Events The rate of potential adverse drug events due to nontiming administration errors fell from 3.1% to 1.6%, representing a 50.8% relative reduction. Timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3%, but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly.
Study Author Conclusions Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. The bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety.
Critique The study demonstrated significant reductions in medication administration and transcription errors, highlighting the effectiveness of bar-code eMAR technology. However, the study was limited to a single hospital with existing computerized physician-order entry and pharmacy bar-code verification, which may limit generalizability. The study also did not measure actual adverse drug events, only potential ones. Further research is needed to evaluate the technology's impact in different settings and its long-term effects on patient safety.
Table 1 References:
[4] Poon EG, Keohane CA, Yoon CS, et al. Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(18):1698-1707. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0907115

Barcode medication administration system use and safety implications: a data-driven longitudinal study supported by clinical observation
Design

Single-centered retrospective data-based study informed by prospective clinical observations

N= 613,868 medication administrations

Objective To explore the barriers and enablers for the successful use of a BCMA system by examining the patterns of medication and patient scanning over time and potential safety implications
Study Groups

Ward A1 (n= 246,087)

Ward N1 (n= 109,213)

Ward N5 (n= 102,592)

Ward W2 (n= 34,909)

Ward W4 (n= 121,067)

Inclusion Criteria Medication administration data from April 2019 to July 2020 from five selected wards across three sites within the same central London NHS hospital trust
Exclusion Criteria Not explicitly stated
Methods Retrospective analysis of medication administration data extracted from the EHR system, including time and date of administration, medication information, and ward details. Compliance assessed by medication and patient wristband barcode scanning. Linear regression analysis to determine factors influencing scanning compliance. Clinical observations conducted to provide contextual insights.
Duration April 2019 to July 2020
Outcome Measures

Primary: Medication and patient scanning compliance rates

Secondary: Reasons for non-compliance, factors influencing scanning rates, impact of scan-mismatch alerts

Baseline Characteristics   Ward A1 Ward N1 Ward N5 Ward W2 Ward W4
Number of medication administrations 246,087 109,213 102,592 34,909 121,067
Mean number of daily administrations 503.2 229.4 221.6 70.2 233
Mean number of patients 53.9 18.9 18.8 11.4 16.4
Results   Medication Scanned (%) Patient Scanned (%)
Ward A1 5.6% 4.6%
Ward N1 44.2% 66.0%
Ward N5 7% 12%
Ward W2 67% 89%
Ward W4 45% 61%
Adverse Events N/A
Study Author Conclusions BCMA systems may help to improve medication safety, but further research is needed to confirm sustained safety benefits. Compliance with BCMA systems varied across wards and changed over time. QI initiatives hold promise to ensure sustained use of BCMA systems.
Critique The study provides valuable insights into BCMA system compliance and its variability across different wards. However, it is limited by its single-center design and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on working practices. The study's findings may not be generalizable to other settings with different levels of digital maturity.
Table 2 References:
[5] Williams R, Kantilal K, Man KKC, Blandford A, Jani Y. Barcode medication administration system use and safety implications: a data-driven longitudinal study supported by clinical observation. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2025;32(1):e101214. Published 2025 Jan 19. doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101214