-
Drug Safety Nov 2013Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented to minimise their occurrence.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to systematically review and appraise empirical evidence relating to the causes of medication administration errors (MAEs) in hospital settings.
DATA SOURCES
Nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ASSIA, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Social Science Citations Index) were searched between 1985 and May 2013.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible publications through title analysis followed by abstract and then full text examination. English language publications reporting empirical data on causes of MAEs were included. Reference lists of included articles and relevant review papers were hand searched for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they did not report data on specific MAEs, used accounts from individuals not directly involved in the MAE concerned or were presented as conference abstracts with insufficient detail.
DATA APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
A total of 54 unique studies were included. Causes of MAEs were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation. Studies were assessed to determine relevance to the research question and how likely the results were to reflect the potential underlying causes of MAEs based on the method(s) used.
RESULTS
Slips and lapses were the most commonly reported unsafe acts, followed by knowledge-based mistakes and deliberate violations. Error-provoking conditions influencing administration errors included inadequate written communication (prescriptions, documentation, transcription), problems with medicines supply and storage (pharmacy dispensing errors and ward stock management), high perceived workload, problems with ward-based equipment (access, functionality), patient factors (availability, acuity), staff health status (fatigue, stress) and interruptions/distractions during drug administration. Few studies sought to determine the causes of intravenous MAEs. A number of latent pathway conditions were less well explored, including local working culture and high-level managerial decisions. Causes were often described superficially; this may be related to the use of quantitative surveys and observation methods in many studies, limited use of established error causation frameworks to analyse data and a predominant focus on issues other than the causes of MAEs among studies.
LIMITATIONS
As only English language publications were included, some relevant studies may have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence from studies included in this systematic review suggests that MAEs are influenced by multiple systems factors, but if and how these arise and interconnect to lead to errors remains to be fully determined. Further research with a theoretical focus is needed to investigate the MAE causation pathway, with an emphasis on ensuring interventions designed to minimise MAEs target recognised underlying causes of errors to maximise their impact.
Topics: Data Collection; Databases, Factual; Drug Prescriptions; Hospitals, Teaching; Humans; Medication Errors; Models, Theoretical; Patient Care Team; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Workload
PubMed: 23975331
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0090-2 -
Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North... Jun 2018With an estimated 90% of all hospitalized patients receiving intravenous medications via infusion pumps, intravenous infusion pump systems are among the most frequently... (Review)
Review
With an estimated 90% of all hospitalized patients receiving intravenous medications via infusion pumps, intravenous infusion pump systems are among the most frequently used technologies in health care. This article reviews important issues regarding clinical usability, intravenous medication administration error, and patient safety related to the use of intravenous smart pumps. Although it is possible to address some of the issues with changes in clinical processes, the most fundamental challenges need to be addressed through innovation and the development of new technologies using a human factors approach.
Topics: Critical Care Nursing; Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted; Humans; Infusion Pumps; Infusions, Intravenous; Medication Errors; Patient Safety
PubMed: 29724440
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnc.2018.02.004 -
BMC Health Services Research Oct 2021The aim of the third WHO challenge released in 2017 was to attain a global commitment to lessen the severity and to prevent medication-related harm by 50% within the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of the third WHO challenge released in 2017 was to attain a global commitment to lessen the severity and to prevent medication-related harm by 50% within the next five years. To achieve this goal, comprehensive identification of barriers to reporting medication errors is imperative.
OBJECTIVE
This review systematically identified and examined the barriers hindering nurses from reporting medication administration errors in the hospital setting.
DESIGN
An integrative review.
REVIEW METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) including Google scholar were searched to identify published studies on barriers to medication administration error reporting from January 2016 to December 2020. Two reviewers (AA, and KDK) independently assessed the quality of all the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018.
RESULTS
Of the 10, 929 articles retrieved, 14 studies were included in this study. The main themes and subthemes identified as barriers to reporting medication administration errors after the integration of results from qualitative and quantitative studies were: organisational barriers (inadequate reporting systems, management behaviour, and unclear definition of medication error), and professional and individual barriers (fear of management/colleagues/lawsuit, individual reasons, and inadequate knowledge of errors).
CONCLUSION
Providing an enabling environment void of punitive measures and blame culture is imperious for nurses to report medication administration errors. Policymakers, managers, and nurses should agree on a uniform definition of what constitutes medication error to enhance nurses' ability to report medication administration errors.
Topics: Fear; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Nurses; Patient Safety
PubMed: 34696788
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07187-5 -
BMC Health Services Research Sep 2019Medication errors are a serious and complex problem in clinical practice, especially in intensive care units whose patients can suffer potentially very serious...
BACKGROUND
Medication errors are a serious and complex problem in clinical practice, especially in intensive care units whose patients can suffer potentially very serious consequences because of the critical nature of their diseases and the pharmacotherapy programs implemented in these patients. The origins of these errors discussed in the literature are wide-ranging, although far-reaching variables are of particular special interest to those involved in training nurses. The main objective of this research was to study if the level of knowledge that critical-care nurses have about the use and administration of medications is related to the most common medication errors.
METHODS
This was a mixed (multi-method) study with three phases that combined quantitative and qualitative techniques. In phase 1 patient medical records were reviewed; phase 2 consisted of an interview with a focus group; and an ad hoc questionnaire was carried out in phase 3.
RESULTS
The global medication error index was 1.93%. The main risk areas were errors in the interval of administration of antibiotics (8.15% error rate); high-risk medication dilution, concentration, and infusion-rate errors (2.94% error rate); and errors in the administration of medications via nasogastric tubes (11.16% error rate).
CONCLUSIONS
Nurses have a low level of knowledge of the drugs they use the most and with which a greater number of medication errors are committed in the ICU.
Topics: Critical Care Nursing; Critical Illness; Female; Focus Groups; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Male; Medication Errors; Middle Aged; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 31492188
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4481-7 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jun 20091. To understand medication errors and to identify preventive strategies, we need to classify them and define the terms that describe them. 2. The four main approaches...
1. To understand medication errors and to identify preventive strategies, we need to classify them and define the terms that describe them. 2. The four main approaches to defining technical terms consider etymology, usage, previous definitions, and the Ramsey-Lewis method (based on an understanding of theory and practice). 3. A medication error is 'a failure in the treatment process that leads to, or has the potential to lead to, harm to the patient'. 4. Prescribing faults, a subset of medication errors, should be distinguished from prescription errors. A prescribing fault is 'a failure in the prescribing [decision-making] process that leads to, or has the potential to lead to, harm to the patient'. The converse of this, 'balanced prescribing' is 'the use of a medicine that is appropriate to the patient's condition and, within the limits created by the uncertainty that attends therapeutic decisions, in a dosage regimen that optimizes the balance of benefit to harm'. This excludes all forms of prescribing faults, such as irrational, inappropriate, and ineffective prescribing, underprescribing and overprescribing. 5. A prescription error is 'a failure in the prescription writing process that results in a wrong instruction about one or more of the normal features of a prescription'. The 'normal features' include the identity of the recipient, the identity of the drug, the formulation, dose, route, timing, frequency, and duration of administration. 6. Medication errors can be classified, invoking psychological theory, as knowledge-based mistakes, rule-based mistakes, action-based slips, and memory-based lapses. This classification informs preventive strategies.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Humans; Medication Errors; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 19594526
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03415.x -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2021Look-alike or sound-alike (LASA) medication names may be mistaken for each other, e.g. mercaptamine and mercaptopurine. If an error of this sort is not intercepted, it... (Review)
Review
Look-alike or sound-alike (LASA) medication names may be mistaken for each other, e.g. mercaptamine and mercaptopurine. If an error of this sort is not intercepted, it can reach the patient and may result in harm. LASA errors occur because of shared linguistic properties between names (phonetic or orthographic), and potential for error is compounded by similar packaging, tablet appearance, tablet strength, route of administration or therapeutic indication. Estimates of prevalence range from 0.00003 to 0.0022% of all prescriptions, 7% of near misses, and between 6.2 and 14.7% of all medication error events. Solutions to LASA errors can target people or systems, and include reducing interruptions or distractions during medication administration, typographic tweaks, such as selective capitalization (Tall Man letters) or boldface, barcoding, and computerized physician order entry.
Topics: Humans; Male; Medical Order Entry Systems; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32198938
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14285 -
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health Mar 2019This study aimed to examine reported medication error trends in an Australian paediatric hospital over a 5-year period and to determine the effects of person-related,...
AIM
This study aimed to examine reported medication error trends in an Australian paediatric hospital over a 5-year period and to determine the effects of person-related, environment-related and communication-related factors on the severity of medication outcomes. In particular, the focus was on the influence of changes to a hospital site and structure on the severity of medication errors.
METHODS
A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken over a 5-year period of paediatric medication errors submitted to an online voluntary reporting system of an Australian, tertiary, public teaching paediatric hospital. All medication errors submitted to the online system between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2015 were included.
RESULTS
A total of 3340 medication errors was reported, which corresponded to 0.56% medication errors per combined admissions and presentations or 5.73 medication errors per 1000 bed days. The most common patient outcomes related to errors requiring monitoring or an intervention to ensure no harm occurred (n = 1631, 48.8%). A new hospital site and structure had 0.354 reduced odds of producing medication errors causing possible or probable harm (95% confidence interval 0.298-0.421, P < 0.0001). Patient and family involvement had 1.270 increased odds of identifying medication errors associated with possible or probable harm compared with those causing no harm (95% confidence interval 1.028-1.568, P = 0.027). Interrupted time series analyses showed that moving to a new hospital site and structure was associated with a reduction in reported medication errors.
CONCLUSION
Encouraging child and family involvement, facilitating hospital redesign and improving communication could help to reduce the harm associated with medication errors.
Topics: Australia; Causality; Child; Health Care Surveys; Hospitalization; Hospitals, Pediatric; Humans; Interdisciplinary Communication; Medication Errors; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30168236
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14193 -
Drug Safety Dec 2019Children admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units may be at high risk from medication errors and preventable adverse drug events.
INTRODUCTION
Children admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units may be at high risk from medication errors and preventable adverse drug events.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to review empirical studies examining the prevalence and nature of medication errors and preventable adverse drug events in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units.
DATA SOURCES
Seven electronic databases were searched between January 2000 and March 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Quantitative studies that examined medication errors/preventable adverse drug events using direct observation, medication chart review, or a mixture of methods in children ≤ 18 years of age admitted to paediatric or neonatal intensive care units were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data on study design, detection method used, rates and types of medication errors/preventable adverse drug events, and medication classes involved were extracted.
RESULTS
Thirty-five unique studies were identified for inclusion. In paediatric intensive care units, the median rate of medication errors was 14.6 per 100 medication orders (interquartile range 5.7-48.8%, n = 3) and between 6.4 and 9.1 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). In neonatal intensive care units, medication error rates ranged from 4 to 35.1 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2) and from 5.5 to 77.9 per 100 medication orders (n = 2). In both settings, prescribing and medication administration errors were found to be the most common medication errors, with dosing errors the most frequently reported error subtype. Preventable adverse drug event rates were reported in three paediatric intensive care unit studies as 2.3 per 100 patients (n = 1) and 21-29 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). In neonatal intensive care units, preventable adverse drug event rates from three studies were 0.86 per 1000 doses (n = 1) and 0.47-14.38 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). Anti-infective agents were commonly involved with medication errors/preventable adverse drug events in both settings.
CONCLUSIONS
Medication errors occur frequently in critically ill children admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units and may lead to patient harm. Important targets such as dosing errors and anti-infective medications were identified to guide the development of remedial interventions.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Intensive Care Units, Pediatric; Medication Errors; Prevalence
PubMed: 31410745
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-019-00856-9 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Oct 2019Computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems are electronic prescribing strategies that are increasingly used to improve patient safety.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems are electronic prescribing strategies that are increasingly used to improve patient safety. Previous reviews show limited effect on patient outcomes. Our objective was to assess the impact of electronic prescribing strategies on medication errors and patient harm in hospitalized patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from January 2007 to January 2018. We included prospective studies that compared hospital-based electronic prescribing strategies with control, and reported on medication error or patient harm. Data were abstracted by two reviewers and pooled using random effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included; comprised of 11 randomized control trials and 27 non-randomized interventional studies. Electronic prescribing strategies reduced medication errors (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.13, 0.46), I 98%, n = 11) and dosing errors (RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.08, 0.38), I 96%, n = 9), with both risk ratios significantly affected by advancing year of publication. There was a significant effect of electronic prescribing strategies on adverse drug events (ADEs) (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.40, 0.68), I 0%, n = 2), but not on preventable ADEs (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.01), I 78%, n = 3), hypoglycemia (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.62-1.70), I 28%, n = 7), length of stay (MD - 0.18 (95% - 1.42, 1.05), I 94%, n = 7), or mortality (RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.79, 1.19), I 74%, n = 9). The quality of evidence was rated very low.
DISCUSSION
Electronic prescribing strategies decrease medication errors and adverse drug events, but had no effect on other patient outcomes. Conservative interpretations of these findings are supported by significant heterogeneity and the preponderance of low-quality studies.
Topics: Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Electronic Prescribing; Humans; Medication Errors; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31396810
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05236-8 -
The New England Journal of Medicine May 2010Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
BACKGROUND
Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has been developed to verify medications by incorporating bar-code verification technology within an electronic medication-administration system (bar-code eMAR).
METHODS
We conducted a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study in an academic medical center that was implementing the bar-code eMAR. We assessed rates of errors in order transcription and medication administration on units before and after implementation of the bar-code eMAR. Errors that involved early or late administration of medications were classified as timing errors and all others as nontiming errors. Two clinicians reviewed the errors to determine their potential to harm patients and classified those that could be harmful as potential adverse drug events.
RESULTS
We observed 14,041 medication administrations and reviewed 3082 order transcriptions. Observers noted 776 nontiming errors in medication administration on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR (an 11.5% error rate) versus 495 such errors on units that did use it (a 6.8% error rate)--a 41.4% relative reduction in errors (P<0.001). The rate of potential adverse drug events (other than those associated with timing errors) fell from 3.1% without the use of the bar-code eMAR to 1.6% with its use, representing a 50.8% relative reduction (P<0.001). The rate of timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3% (P<0.001), but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly. Transcription errors occurred at a rate of 6.1% on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR but were completely eliminated on units that did use it.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and in medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. Our data show that the bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243373.)
Topics: Academic Medical Centers; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Electronic Data Processing; Humans; Medical Order Entry Systems; Medication Errors; Medication Systems, Hospital; Organizational Case Studies; Organizational Innovation; Pharmaceutical Preparations; United States
PubMed: 20445181
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0907115