-
BMC Medicine Nov 2020Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.
PROSPERO
CRD42020164156.
RESULTS
Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I = 99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n = 12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n = 20, I = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I = 99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the 'central nervous system' and 'cardiovascular system'.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation's push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Drug Monitoring; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Patient Safety; Prevalence
PubMed: 33153451
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01774-9 -
Research in Social & Administrative... 2012Medication reconciliation has been recognized as an important process in care transitions to prevent adverse health outcomes. Because older adults have multiple comorbid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication reconciliation has been recognized as an important process in care transitions to prevent adverse health outcomes. Because older adults have multiple comorbid conditions and use multiple medications, they are more likely to experience complicated transitions between acute and long-term care settings. Hence, it is important to develop effective interventions to protect older adults at transition points of care.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature and evaluate studies performing medication reconciliation interventions in patients transferred to and from long-term care settings.
METHODS
The literature search focused on studies that evaluated an intervention involving medication reconciliation in patients transferred to and/or from long-term care settings, such as nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, residential care facilities, assisted living facilities, homes for the aged, and hospice care. A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE (1950-August 2010), Ovid HealthSTAR (1966-August 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982-August 2010), PubMed (1980-August 2010), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005-August 2010), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, and reference lists of relevant articles were hand-searched. Two reviewers screened the titles and abstracts for potentially relevant studies. Data abstraction from the included articles was performed independently by 4 reviewers.
RESULTS
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were performed in the United States, whereas 3 studies were performed in other countries. A clinical pharmacist proved to be useful in providing medication reconciliation interventions by adopting specialized responsibilities such as serving as a transition pharmacist coordinator or working through a call center. Although improvement in the outcome(s) examined was shown in all of the studies, there were study design flaws.
CONCLUSION
There is a need for well-designed studies demonstrating the effectiveness of medication reconciliation interventions in long-term care settings. Future studies should focus on employing appropriate methods so that their interventions can be evaluated more effectively.
Topics: Continuity of Patient Care; Humans; Long-Term Care; Medication Reconciliation; Patient Transfer
PubMed: 21511543
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.12.002 -
International Journal For Quality in... Dec 2010Multiplicity in terminology has been suggested as a possible explanation for the variation in the prevalence of medication errors. So far, few empirical studies have... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Multiplicity in terminology has been suggested as a possible explanation for the variation in the prevalence of medication errors. So far, few empirical studies have challenged this assertion. The objective of this review was, therefore, to describe the extent and characteristics of medication error definitions in hospitals and to consider the consequences for measuring the prevalence of medication errors.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
and data extraction Studies were searched for in PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and CINAHL employing primary search terms such as 'medication errors' and 'adverse drug events'. Peer-reviewed articles containing these terms as primary end-points were included. Study country, year, aim, design, data-collection methods, sample-size, interventions and
MAIN RESULT
were extracted. Result of data synthesis Forty-five of 203 relevant studies provided a generic definition of medication errors including 26 different forms of wordings. The studies conducted in nine countries represented a variety of clinical settings and the approach was mainly descriptive. Of utmost importance is the documented prevalence of medication errors, which ranged from 2 to 75% with no associations found between definitions and prevalence.
CONCLUSION
Inconsistency in defining medication errors has been confirmed. It appears that definitions and methods of detection rather than being reproducible and reliable methods are subject to the individual researcher's preferences. Thus, application of a clear-cut definition, standardized terminology and reliable methods has the potential to greatly improve the quality and consistency of medication error reporting. Efforts to achieve a common accepted definition that defines the scope and content are therefore needed.
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Medication Errors; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 20956285
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzq059 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Jan 2020Medication error is the most common type of medical error, and intravenous medicines are at a higher risk as they are complex to prepare and administer. The WHO...
OBJECTIVES
Medication error is the most common type of medical error, and intravenous medicines are at a higher risk as they are complex to prepare and administer. The WHO advocates a 50% reduction of harmful medication errors by 2022, but there is a lack of data in the UK that accurately estimates the true rate of intravenous medication errors. This study aimed to estimate the number of intravenous medication errors per 1000 administrations in the UK National Health Service and their associated economic costs. The rate of errors in prescribing, preparation and administration, and rate of different types of errors were also extracted.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane central register of clinical trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Appraisals Database were searched from inception to July 2017. Epidemiological studies to determine the incidence of intravenous medication errors set wholly or in part in the UK were included. 228 studies were identified, and after screening, eight papers were included, presenting 2576 infusions. Data were reviewed and extracted by a team of five reviewers with discrepancies in data extraction agreed by consensus.
RESULTS
Five of eight studies used a comparable denominator, and these data were pooled to determine a weighted mean incidence of 101 intravenous medication errors per 1000 administrations (95% CI 84 to 121). Three studies presented prevalence data but these were based on spontaneous reports only; therefore it did not support a true estimate. 32.1% (95% CI 30.6% to 33.7%) of intravenous medication errors were administration errors and 'wrong rate' errors accounted for 57.9% (95% CI 54.7% to 61.1%) of these.
CONCLUSION
Intravenous medication errors in the UK are common, with half these of errors related to medication administration. National strategies are aimed at mitigating errors in prescribing and preparation. It is now time to focus on reducing administration error, particularly wrong rate errors.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Incidence; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Prevalence; United Kingdom
PubMed: 32064081
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-001624 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the overall prevalence of PIM use in outpatient services.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1990, to November 21, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies that reported the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were screened.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The global patterns in the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were estimated, and the temporal trends and regional differences in PIM use were investigated.
RESULTS
A total of 94 articles with 132 prevalence estimates were analyzed, including nearly 371.2 million older participants from 17 countries. Overall, the pooled prevalence of PIM use was 36.7% (95% CI, 33.4%-40.0%). Africa had the highest prevalence of PIM use (47.0%; 95% CI, 34.7%-59.4%), followed by South America (46.9%; 95% CI, 35.1%-58.9%), Asia (37.2%; 95% CI, 32.4%-42.2%), Europe (35.0%; 95% CI, 28.5%-41.8%), North America (29.0%; 95% CI, 22.1%-36.3%), and Oceania (23.6%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.8%). In addition, the prevalence of PIM use is highest in low-income areas. Use of PIMs among older patients has become increasingly prevalent in the past 2 decades.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study of patterns of PIM use by different groups, such as geographic regions and World Bank countries, suggests noticeable geographic environment and economic income differences in the burden of PIMs in outpatient services. Furthermore, the high prevalence trend in the past 2 decades indicates that the global burden of PIM use continues to be worthy of attention.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Potentially Inappropriate Medication List; Inappropriate Prescribing; Prevalence; Europe; North America
PubMed: 37531105
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26910 -
Pediatric Emergency Care Jan 2024This systematic review aims to investigate the prevalence, preventability, and severity of medication errors in pediatric emergency departments (P-EDs). It also aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to investigate the prevalence, preventability, and severity of medication errors in pediatric emergency departments (P-EDs). It also aims to identify common types of medication errors, implicated medications, risk factors, and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in preventing these errors.
METHODS
A systematic review analyzed 6 primary studies with sample sizes ranging from 96 to 5000 pediatric patients in P-EDs. The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and included observational studies and randomized controlled trials involving patients aged 18 years and younger. Comprehensive searches in biomedical databases were conducted, and conflicts in record screening were resolved by a third reviewer using systematic review software.
RESULTS
Medication errors in P-EDs are prevalent, ranging from 10% to 15%, with dosing errors being the most common, accounting for 39% to 49% of reported errors. These errors primarily stem from inaccurate weight estimations or dosage miscalculations. Inadequate dosing frequency and documentation also contribute significantly to medication errors. Commonly implicated medications include acetaminophen, analgesics, corticosteroids, antibiotics, bronchodilators, and intravenous fluids. Most errors are categorized as insignificant/mild (51.7% to 94.5%) or moderate (47.5%). Risk factors associated with medication errors in P-EDs include less experienced physicians, severely ill patients, and weekend/specific-hour ordering. Human factors such as noncompliance with procedures and communication failures further contribute to medication errors. Interventions such as health information technology solutions like ParentLink and electronic medical alert systems, as well as structured ordering systems, have shown promise in reducing these errors, although their effectiveness varies.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this systematic review provides valuable insights into the complexity of medication errors in the P-ED, emphasizes the need for targeted interventions, and offers recommendations to enhance medication safety and reduce preventable errors in this critical health care setting.
Topics: Child; Humans; Drug Dosage Calculations; Emergency Service, Hospital; Medication Errors; Risk Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38157396
DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000003108 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Jan 2024Dispensing errors can cause preventable patient harm such as adverse drug events, hospitalisation, or death. The aim of this study was to systematically review the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Dispensing errors can cause preventable patient harm such as adverse drug events, hospitalisation, or death. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and quantify the global prevalence of dispensing errors across pharmacy settings.
METHODS
Electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched between January 2010 and September 2023. Studies published in English, from all pharmacy settings, with data that could be used to calculate the prevalence of dispensing errors were included. Studies were excluded if they did not report true dispensing errors. Data including study characteristics and dispensing error characteristics were extracted. The quality of the studies was assessed using 10 criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed to estimate pooled prevalences and heterogeneity was quantified using the I statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed according to sample size, study design, setting, error identification method, location, and study quality.
PROSPERO
CRD42020197860.
RESULTS
Of the 4216 articles, 62 studies were included. Hospital was the most common pharmacy setting (n = 44, 71.0%) and 15 studies were based in the community. The type of denominator used to report dispensing errors varied between studies, such as dispensed items (n = 45, 72.6%), doses (n = 7, 11.3%), or patients (n = 5, 8.1%). The prevalence of dispensing errors ranged from 0 to 33.3% (n = 62 studies with 64 prevalence estimates). The pooled prevalence for dispensing errors across all studies was 1.6% (95% CI 1.2%-2.1%, I = 100%). A majority of studies were of moderate methodological quality (n = 36, 58.1%) and interrater reliability was applied in eight studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The worldwide prevalence of dispensing errors was 1.6% across community, hospital and other pharmacy settings. This varied depending on the type of denominator used, study design and how the error was identified. This review highlights the need for consistent definitions and standardised classifications of dispensing errors worldwide to reduce heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Medication Errors; Reproducibility of Results; Pharmacy; Pharmaceutical Services; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37848350
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.10.003 -
Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal : SPJ :... Nov 2018Errors in medication use are a patient safety concern globally, with different regions reporting differing error rates, causes of errors and proposed solutions. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Errors in medication use are a patient safety concern globally, with different regions reporting differing error rates, causes of errors and proposed solutions. The objectives of this review were to identify, summarise, review and evaluate published studies on medication errors, drug related problems and adverse drug events in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out using six databases, searching for literature published between January 1990 and August 2016. Research articles focussing on medication errors, drug related problems or adverse drug events within different healthcare settings in the GCC were included.
RESULTS
Of 2094 records screened, 54 studies met our inclusion criteria. Kuwait was the only GCC country with no studies included. Prescribing errors were reported to be as high as 91% of a sample of primary care prescriptions analysed in one study. Of drug-related admissions evaluated in the emergency department the most common reason was patient non-compliance. In the inpatient care setting, a study of review of patient charts and medication orders identified prescribing errors in 7% of medication orders, another reported prescribing errors present in 56% of medication orders. The majority of drug related problems identified in inpatient paediatric wards were judged to be preventable. Adverse drug events were reported to occur in 8.5-16.9 per 100 admissions with up to 30% judged preventable, with occurrence being highest in the intensive care unit. Dosing errors were common in inpatient, outpatient and primary care settings. Omission of the administered dose as well as omission of prescribed medication at medication reconciliation were common. Studies of pharmacists' interventions in clinical practice reported a varying level of acceptance, ranging from 53% to 98% of pharmacists' recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of medication errors, drug related problems and adverse drug events are increasing in the GCC. However, variation in methods, definitions and denominators preclude calculation of an overall error rate. Research with more robust methodologies and longer follow up periods is now required.
PubMed: 30416356
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2018.05.008 -
Joint Commission Journal on Quality and... Jul 2021The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the impact of in-hospital electronic/enhanced medication reconciliation compared to basic medication... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the impact of in-hospital electronic/enhanced medication reconciliation compared to basic medication reconciliation on medication errors, discrepancies, and adverse drug events (ADEs).
METHODS
The study team searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles in EMBASE, OVID, and Scopus databases up to October 2019. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pre-post, or interrupted time series designs with medication errors, discrepancies, or ADEs as an outcome, and medication reconciliation applied at hospital discharge. Basic medication reconciliation was defined as using a paper-based format, electronic medication reconciliation as using an electronic format, and enhanced medication reconciliation as incorporating additional interventions to reduce medication errors.
RESULTS
Ten studies (three RCTs, one retrospective cohort study, two interrupted time series studies, three pre-post studies, and one longitudinal study) were identified, with six and four studies comparing basic medication reconciliation to electronic and enhanced medication reconciliation, respectively. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low (three), unclear (two), moderate (three), and serious/high (two). In general, studies demonstrated that electronic medication reconciliation reduced the odds of a medication discrepancy or ADE and may reduce the mean number of medication discrepancies. Enhanced medication reconciliation was more equivocal, with some studies showing improvement; however, risk of bias was generally significant.
CONCLUSION
Electronic medication reconciliation tends to reduce the risk of ADE; however, these conclusions were limited due to a lack of consistency in study settings, interventions, and outcome definitions. Future studies with more rigorous designs and standardized outcome definitions would provide clarity on this topic.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Medication Reconciliation; Patient Discharge
PubMed: 34103267
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.03.011 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Dec 2020Older adults with cancer often require multiple medications including cancer-specific treatments and supportive care medications (e.g. analgesics), as well as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Older adults with cancer often require multiple medications including cancer-specific treatments and supportive care medications (e.g. analgesics), as well as medications for pre-existing medical conditions. Increasing numbers of medications pose risks of potentially inappropriate prescribing, drug-drug interactions and drug-disease interactions. The burden of treatment (i.e. the workload of healthcare and its impact on patient functioning and well-being) may also negatively affect the way patients take their medications. Non-adherence to medication in patients with cancer is associated with treatment failure and increased healthcare costs. Therefore, it is crucial that medicines are optimised for older adults with cancer to enhance appropriate prescribing, reduce the complexity of treatment regimens and minimise the risk of non-adherence.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an overview of evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults with cancer.
METHODS
A systematic scoping review will be undertaken. Four databases will be searched from inception: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. In order to meet inclusion criteria, studies must evaluate an intervention seeking to improve medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults (aged ≥65 years) with an active cancer diagnosis using a comparative evaluation (e.g. inclusion of a control group). Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion and extract data relating to study population, intervention characteristics, outcome assessments and key findings. Extracted data will be collated using tables, figures and accompanying descriptive summaries. The review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.
PROJECT IMPACT
The scoping nature of this review will serve to provide an overview of the existing literature on interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer. The review findings will help to identify research gaps and highlight areas to explore further in future research.
Topics: Aged; Delivery of Health Care; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Medication Adherence; Neoplasms
PubMed: 32147463
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.021