The incidence of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: an overview of the research methods

Hospital-wide interventions for reducing or preventing in-hospital prescribing errors: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Prescribing errors (PEs) in hospital care lead to patient harm, prolonged hospital stays, readmissions, and mortality. Despite interventions that successfully target 'high risk' populations in trials, PE rates remain largely unchanged in real-world settings. Existing studies often focus narrowly on specific populations, overlooking the wider complexities of hospital-wide prescribing. This scoping review evaluates interventions for adult inpatients to identify knowledge gaps in how to reduce in-hospital PEs.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE.com, and the Cochrane Library (inception to 13 December 2024) was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies prospectively evaluating interventions reducing in-hospital PEs were eligible for inclusion; those focusing on specific drugs, wards or populations or lacking original data were excluded.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Technological interventions, such as computerized order entry systems, accounted for 35.7% of the studies. Half addressed prescriber-related factors, such as inadequate drug knowledge and prescribing skills, while organizational factors were underexplored.

CONCLUSION

Current interventions fail to address the underlying complexities, leaving critical gaps to decrease in-hospital PEs. To achieve sustainable PE reductions and improve patient safety, a multidisciplinary approach, standardized reporting, organizational reform, and a Safety-II perspective are essential.

A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis of Medication Errors among Adult Patients: Characteristics and Outcomes

Medication errors (MEs) are a global health problem. We conducted this study to clarify the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and factors associated with MEs that caused harm to adult patients (>15 years of age) who were managed in hospitals or healthcare facilities. We performed a 10-year retrospective study (2011-2020) by analyzing data from the Ramathibodi Poison Center (RPC) database (RPC Toxic Exposure Surveillance System). There were a total of 112 patients included in this study. Most were women (59.8%) and had underlying diseases (53.6%). The mean patient age was 50.5 years. Most MEs occurred during the afternoon shift (51.8%) and in the outpatient department (65.2%). The most common type of ME was a dose error (40.2%). Local anesthetic was the most common class of ME-related drug. Five patients died due to MEs. We analyzed the factors associated with MEs that caused patient harm, including death (categories E-I). The presence of underlying diseases was the single factor that was statistically significantly different between groups. Clinical characteristics showed no significant difference between patients aged 15-65 years and those aged >65 years. In conclusion, our findings emphasized that MEs can cause harm and even death in some adult patients. Local anesthetics were the most commonly involved in MEs. Having an underlying disease might contribute to severe consequences from MEs. Preventive measures and safety systems must be highlighted and applied to prevent or minimize the occurrence of MEs.

Analysis of Prescribing Practices in the Dermatology Outpatient Department of a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital

Introduction The practice of appropriately prescribing and delivering pharmaceuticals to the right patient for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases is referred to as "rational drug usage". Patients should receive pharmaceuticals that are appropriate for their clinical needs, given in doses that meet their needs, for long enough periods of time, and for the least amount of money possible. Minimizing drug therapy costs without sacrificing therapeutic effectiveness, avoiding unnecessary adverse medication reactions and drug-drug interactions, and improving therapeutic care while encouraging patient adherence are the main objectives of rational drug usage. The present study was planned to assess the current prescribing practices in the dermatology outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital. Materials and methods A prospective descriptive study was conducted in the department of dermatology at a tertiary care teaching hospital after receiving permission from the institutional ethics committee. The study was conducted from November 2022 to February 2023 and followed the WHO recommendation for sample size. A total of 617 prescriptions were analyzed thoroughly. Results Regarding the demographic profile of the 617 prescriptions, 299 were male and 318 were female. The patients had diverse diseases, with the most common being tinea infection (57 cases, 9%) and acne vulgaris (53 cases, 8.5%), followed by scabies (38 cases, 6%), urticaria, and eczema (30 cases, 5%). Twenty-six (4%) prescriptions were not written in capital letters, 86 (13%) prescriptions did not mention the route of drug administration, and the consultant's or physician's name and signature were missing in 13 (2%), and six (1%) prescriptions, respectively. None of the prescriptions were written using the generic names of the drugs. Polypharmacy was observed in 51 (8%) prescriptions. Moreover, potential drug-drug interactions were identified in 12 (1.9%) instances. The most prescribed drugs were antihistaminics, with 393 (23%) prescriptions. Antifungal drugs were the second most prescribed, with 291 (17%) prescriptions. Corticosteroids were also commonly prescribed, with 271 (16%) prescriptions. Antibiotics were prescribed in 168 (10%) cases; other drugs were prescribed in 597 (35%) cases, including retinoids, anti-scabies drugs, antileprotic drugs, moisturizers, sunscreens, etc. Conclusion The study highlighted the prescription errors in writing the drugs in capital letters, mentioning the dose, route, and frequency of drugs, etc. It provided insight into the common diseases in dermatology and routine prescribing patterns and addressed the frequency of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions.

Impact of technology-assisted versus manual sterile compounding on safety and efficiency in a Canadian community hospital

Purpose

Interventions to improve the safety and efficiency of manual sterile compounding are needed. This study evaluated the impact of a technology-assisted workflow system (TAWS) on sterile compounding safety (checks, traceability, and error detection), and efficiency (task time).

Methods

Observations were conducted in an oncology pharmacy transitioning from a manual to a TAWS process for sterile compounding. Process maps were generated to compare manual and TAWS checks and traceability. The numbers and types of errors detected were collected, and task times were observed directly or via TAWS data logs.

Results

Analysis of safety outcomes showed that, depending on preparation type, 3 to 4 product checks occurred in the manual process, compared to 6 to 10 checks with TAWS use. TAWS checks (barcoding and gravimetric verification) produced better traceability (documentation). The rate of incorrect-drug errors decreased with technology-assisted compounding (from 0.4% [5 of 1,350 preparations] with the manual process to 0% [0 of 1,565 preparations] with TAWS use; P < 0.02). The TAWS increased detection of (1) errors in the amount of drug withdrawn from vials (manual vs TAWS, 0.4% [5/1,350] vs 1.2% [18/1565]; P < 0.02), and (2) errors in the amount of drug injected into the final container (manual vs TAWS, 0% [0/1,236] vs 0.9% [11/1,272]; P < 0.002). With regard to efficiency outcomes, TAWS use increased the mean mixing time (manual vs TAWS, 275 seconds vs 355 seconds; P < 0.001), had no significant impact on average visual checking time (manual vs TAWS, 21.4 seconds vs 21.6 seconds), and decreased average physical checking time (manual vs TAWS, 58.6 seconds vs 50.9 seconds; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In comparison to manual sterile compounding, use of the TAWS improved safety through more frequent and rigorous checks, improved traceability (via superior documentation), and enhanced error detection. Results related to efficiency were mixed.

Severe and fatal medication errors in hospitals: findings from the Norwegian Incident Reporting System

BACKGROUND

Even with global efforts to prevent medication errors, they still occur and cause patient harm. Little systematic research has been done in Norway to address this issue.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency, stage and types of medication errors in Norwegian hospitals, with emphasis on the most severe and fatal medication errors.

METHODS

Medication errors reported in 2016 and 2017 (n=3557) were obtained from the Norwegian Incident Reporting System, based on reports from 64 hospitals in 2016 and 55 in 2017. Reports contained categorical data (eg, patient age, incident date) and free text data describing the incident. The errors were classified by error type, stage in the medication process, therapeutic area and degree of harm, using a modified version of the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 3372 reports were included in the study. Most medication errors occurred during administration (68%) and prescribing (24%). The leading types of errors were dosing errors (38%), omissions (23%) and wrong drug (15%). The therapeutic areas most commonly involved were analgesics, antibacterials and antithrombotics. Over half of all errors were harmful (62%), of which 5.2% caused severe harm, and 0.8% were fatal.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication errors most commonly occurred during medication administration. Dosing errors were the most common error type. The substantial number of severe and fatal errors causing preventable patient harm and death emphasises an urgent need for error-prevention strategies. Additional studies and interventions should further investigate the error-prone medication administration stage in hospitals and explore the dynamics of severe incidents.

Implementation and evaluation of a good prescribing tip email to reduce junior doctors' prescribing errors

Background

Prescribing errors are common, occurring in 7% of in-patient medication orders in UK hospitals. Foundation Year 1 (F1) doctors have reported a lack of feedback on prescribing as a cause of errors.

Aim

To evaluate the effect of implementing a shared learning intervention to Foundation Year 1 doctors on their prescribing errors.

Methods

A shared learning intervention, ‘good prescribing tip’ emails, were designed and sent fortnightly to F1s to share feedback about common/serious prescribing errors occurring in the hospital. Ward pharmacists identified prescribing errors in newly prescribed in-patient and discharge medication orders for 2 weeks pre- and post-intervention during Winter/Spring 2017. The prevalence of prescribing errors was compared pre- and post-intervention using statistical analysis.

Results

Overall, there was a statistically significant reduction ( p < 0.05) in the prescribing error rate between pre-intervention (441 errors in 6190 prescriptions, 7.1%) and post-intervention (245 errors in 4866 prescriptions, 5.0%). When data were analysed by ward type there was a statistically significant reduction in the prescribing error rate on medical wards (6.8% to 4.5%) and on surgical wards (8.4% to 6.2%).

Conclusions

It is possible to design and implement a shared learning intervention, the ‘good prescribing tip’ email. Findings suggest that this intervention contributed to a reduction in the prevalence of prescribing errors across all wards, thereby improving patient safety.

Description of pharmacists' reported interventions to prevent prescribing errors among in hospital inpatients: a cross sectional retrospective study

Background

Prescribing errors (PEs) are a common cause of morbidity and mortality, both in community practice and in hospitals. Pharmacists have an essential role in minimizing and preventing PEs, thus, there is a need to document the nature of pharmacists’ interventions to prevent PEs. The purpose of this study was to describe reported interventions conducted by pharmacists to prevent or minimize PEs in a tertiary care hospital.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the electronic medical records data was conducted to identify pharmacists’ interventions related to reported PEs. The PE-related data was extracted for a period of six-month (April to September 2017) and comprised of patient demographics, medication-related information, and the different interventions conducted by the pharmacists. The study was carried in a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh region. The study was ethically reviewed and approved by the hospital IRB committee. Descriptive analyses were appropriately conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics.

Results

A total of 2,564 pharmacists’ interventions related to PEs were recorded. These interventions were reported in 1,565 patients. Wrong dose (54.3 %) and unauthorized prescription (21.9 %) were the most commonly encountered PEs. Anti-infectives for systemic use (49.2 %) and alimentary tract and metabolism medications (18.2 %) were the most common classes involved with PEs. The most commonly reported pharmacists’ interventions were dose adjustments (44.0 %), restricted medication approvals (21.9 %), and therapeutic duplications (11 %).

Conclusions

In this study, PEs occurred commonly and pharmacists’ interventions were critical in preventing possible medication related harm to patients. Care coordination and prioritizing patient safety through quality improvement initiatives at all levels of the health care system can play a key role in this quality improvement drive. Future studies should evaluate the impact of pharmacists’ interventions on patient outcomes.

Harm Prevalence Due to Medication Errors Involving High-Alert Medications: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence and main types of harm caused by high-alert medication after medication errors (MEs) in hospitals.

METHOD

A literature systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Lilacs. Eligible studies published until June 2017 were included.

RESULT

Of 6244 studies identified through searching four electronic databases, five studies meeting the selection criteria of this study were analyzed. There was wide variation in the overall prevalence of harm due to MEs involving HAM, from 3.8% to 100%, whereas the pooled prevalence was 16.3%. Overall, 0.01% of harm caused by MEs involving HAM resulted in death. The severity of errors ranged from 0.1% to 19.2% for moderate errors, 0.2% to 15.4% for serious errors, and 1.9% lethal to the patients. The highest prevalences of harm occurred after errors involving potassium chloride 15%, insulin, and epoprostenol. The lowest prevalence of harm was related to errors of anticoagulants administration. The methodological heterogeneity limited direct comparisons among the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the 15 drugs on the list of Institute for Safe Medication Practices HAMs in the United States and Brazil, nine did not present scientific evidence of the potential for harm. In general, few studies, characterized by methodological and conceptual heterogeneity, were performed to determine the harm prevalence resulting from errors involving these drugs.

A cross-sectional study of errors in physicians orders' of antiseizure medications among people with epilepsy from rural India

AIMS

To enumerate and classify errors in physicians' orders of antiseizure medications (ASMs) to people with epilepsy presenting to neurology clinic.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the neurology clinic of a teaching hospital catering to a predominantly rural population. People in whom a diagnosis of epilepsy was confirmed and who presented for the first time with a prior prescription for antiseizure medication/s were included. Their immediate previous prescriptions were assessed for errors, enumerated and classified according to WHO guidelines for prescription writing.

RESULTS

Hundred prescriptions of 334 patients screened were analyzed. The number of ASMs prescribed to a participant was 2 ± 0.6 (mean ± SD). We identified a mean of 5 ± 4 (median: 3; range: 1-7) errors in each order. These included superscription errors, e.g., missing information on seizure control and frequency (n = 90, 90%), generic name (n = 62, 62%), patient identifiers (n = 57, 57%), prescribers' identifiers (n = 29, 29%) and diagnosis or indication for prescribing the medication/s (n = 55, 55%). The most common inscription and subscription errors were dosing errors (22%) and pharmaceutical form errors (20%) followed by omission (13%), duplication (13%), substitution (12%), commission (9%) and frequency errors (8%). Errors were more common among prescriptions provided by primary-care and Ayurvedic, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) physicians compared to specialists (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Errors are common among medication orders provided by non-specialist and specialist physicians. Primary care and AYUSH are more liable to make errors underscoring the need to educate them in basic epilepsy treatment.

Medication errors in outpatient pharmacies: comparison of an electronic and a paper-based prescription system

Objectives

Medication errors are among the most common medical errors. They can result in mortality, morbidity and additional healthcare costs. Surveillance of medication errors is encouraged to identify gaps in the healthcare system and work on them. This study aimed to compare medication errors in outpatient prescriptions in two hospitals in Jordan: one with a paper-based and one with an electronic prescription system.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional observational study in two large hospitals in Jordan over a three-month period. Prescribing and dispensing of medicines were screened for medication errors in both centres: 2500 prescriptions were screened in each hospital.

Key findings

In the hospital with electronic prescriptions, of the 2500 prescriptions screened, 631 medication errors were detected: 231 (36.6%) prescription errors and 400 (63.4%) dispensing errors. In the hospital with paper-based prescriptions, 3714 medication errors were found: 288 (7.8%) prescription errors and 3426 (92.2%) dispensing errors. The most common prescription and dispensing errors in electronic prescriptions were, respectively, prescription of drugs that could have a drug–drug interaction, and omitting to dispense a drug on the prescription. In the paper prescriptions, the most common prescription and dispensing errors were, respectively, inappropriate dose/quantity/frequency or route of administration, and inappropriate and/or inadequate labelling of medication when dispensed, of which there were a large number (2496 (67.2%)).

Conclusion

This study highlights the effect of the prescription system used by hospitals. Fewer medication errors were found in the electronic system. Healthcare policymakers, professionals and administrators are encouraged to invest in electronic systems to minimize medication errors.

A pragmatic controlled trial to improve the appropriate prescription of drugs in adult outpatients: design and rationale of the EDU.RE.DRUG study

Introduction:

Pharmacological intervention is an important component of patient care. However, drugs are often inappropriately used. It is necessary for countries to implement strategies to improve the rational use of drugs, including independent information for healthcare professionals and the public, which must be supported by well-trained staff. The primary objectives of the EDU.RE.DRUG (Effectiveness of informative and/or educational interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of drugs designed for general practitioners and their patients) study are the retrospective evaluation of rates of appropriate prescribing indicators (APIs) and the assessment of the effectiveness of informative and/or educational interventions addressed to general practitioners (GPs) and their patients, aimed at improving prescribing quality and promoting proper drug use.

Methods and analysis:

This is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, parallel-arm, controlled, pragmatic trial directed to GPs and their patients in two Italian regions (Campania and Lombardy). The study data are retrieved from administrative databases (Demographic, Pharmacy-refill, and Hospitalization databases) containing healthcare information of all beneficiaries of the National Health Service in the Local Health Units (LHUs) involved. According to LHU, the GPs/patients will be assigned to one of the following four intervention arms: (1) intervention on GPs and patients; (2) intervention on GPs; (3) intervention on patients; and (4) no intervention (control). The intervention designed for GPs consists of reports regarding the status of their patients according to the APIs determined at baseline and in two on-line Continuous Medical Education (CME) courses. The intervention designed for patients consists in flyers and posters distributed in GPs ambulatories and community pharmacies, focusing on correct drug use.

A set of indicators (such as potential drug–drug interactions, unnecessary duplicate prescriptions, and inappropriate prescriptions in the elderly), adapted to the Italian setting, has been defined to determine inappropriate prescription at baseline and after the intervention phase. The primary outcome was a composite API.

Ethics and dissemination:

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan on 7th June 2017 (code 15/17). The investigators will communicate trial results to stakeholders, collaborators, and participants via appropriate presentations and publications.

Registration details: NCT04030468. EudraCT number 2017-002622-21

Prevalence of Medication Errors Among Paediatric Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The risk of medication errors is high in paediatric inpatient settings. However, estimates of the prevalence of medication errors have not accounted for heterogeneity across studies in error identification methods and definitions, nor contextual differences across wards and the use of electronic or paper medication charts.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide separate estimates of the prevalence of medication errors among paediatric inpatients, depending on hospital ward and the use of electronic or paper medication charts, that address differences in error identification methods and definitions.

METHODS

We systematically searched five databases to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2018 that assessed medication error rates by medication chart audit, direct observation or a combination of methods.

RESULTS

We identified 71 studies, 19 involved paediatric wards using electronic charts. Most studies assessed prescribing errors with few studies assessing administration errors. Estimates varied by ward type. Studies of paediatric wards using electronic charts generally reported a reduced error prevalence compared to those using paper, although there were some inconsistencies. Error detection methods impacted the rate of administration errors in studies of multiple wards, however, no other difference was found. Definition of medication error did not have a consistent impact on reported error rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication errors are a frequent occurrence in paediatric inpatient settings, particularly in intensive care wards and emergency departments. Hospitals using electronic charts tended to have a lower rate of medication errors compared to those using paper charts. Future research employing controlled designs is needed to determine the true impact of electronic charts and other interventions on medication errors and associated harm among hospitalized children.

Educational Targets to Reduce Medication Errors by General Surgery Residents

OBJECTIVE

Hospitalized patients are exposed to more than 1 medication error per day, but there are limited data concerning the factors associated with medication order errors made by general surgery residents. The objective of this study was to identify patterns in medication order errors amongst general surgery residents, which may provide educational targets to reduce medication errors by this population of providers.

DESIGN

This study used a retrospective cohort design to review inpatient medication orders placed via a computerized physician order entry system by general surgery residents at a single academic medical center from July 2011 to February 2018.

SETTING

A single large academic medical center located in the Midwest, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

General surgery residents completing residency between July 2011 and February 2018 and their respective inpatient medication orders.

RESULTS

Of 571,811 included medication orders placed by 169 unique general surgery residents, 4.2% (n = 24,177) triggered pharmacist intervention, and 11 (0.001%) resulted in significant near-miss events. Of orders requiring pharmacist intervention, most were either duplicate therapies (n = 8703, 36.1%) or errors in renal dosing (n = 7576, 31.3%). Error rates were higher within pharmaceutical classes ordered less frequently, with the notable exception of antimicrobials and anticoagulants, which accounted for 20.1% (n = 5280) and 13.5% (n = 3270) of all order errors, respectively. In a multivariable model, errors were more likely to occur in the intensive care unit versus other units (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 1.14-1.29) and in August versus other months (OR = 1.09, 95%CI = 1.01-1.17), but were independent of other resident and order characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified that resident medication order errors are common and are associated with specific therapeutic classes, the beginning of academic years, and intensive care unit patients. These findings represent potential targets for educational interventions and highlight the role of interdisciplinary teams in providing quality surgical care.

A systematic review examining the effectiveness of medicines information services for patients and the general public

OBJECTIVES

Hospital-based patient medicines helpline services (PMHS) and medicines information services for the general public (MISGP) are available in many countries to support people with their medicines. Our aim was to examine the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of PMHS and MISGP.

METHODS

Searches were conducted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science, on 11 August 2018. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted, grey literature was searched, and study quality/risk of bias was assessed. Findings were synthesised in a narrative synthesis. Where appropriate, weighted means were calculated.

KEY FINDINGS

Thirty-two studies were identified for inclusion (17 published articles, 15 conference abstracts). Eighteen studies were conducted within the United Kingdom. Mean quality assessment was moderate (51%), and risk of bias was high (63%). PMHS and MISGP are both typically perceived as positive (e.g. 94% and 91% of participants were satisfied with using a PMHS and MISGP, respectively). For PMHS, the advice received is reported to be usually followed (94%, and 66% for MISGP). For both services, users report several positive outcomes (e.g. problems resolved/avoided, feeling reassured and improved health). PMHS may also be effective for correcting medicines-related errors (up to 39% of calls may concern such errors) and for potentially avoiding medicines-related harm (48% of enquiries concerned situations that were judged to have the potential to harm patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that both PMHS and MISGP may be beneficial sources of medicines-related support. However, the moderate quality and high risk of bias of studies highlight that more high-quality research is needed.

Pharmacist-led, video-stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors-in-training: A mixed methods evaluation

Aims

To develop and evaluate a feasible, authentic pharmacist‐led prescribing feedback intervention for doctors‐in‐training, to reduce prescribing errors.

Methods

This was a mixed methods study. Sixteen postgraduate doctors‐in training, rotating though the surgical assessment unit of 1 UK hospital, were filmed taking a medication history with a patient and prescribing medications. Each doctor reviewed their video footage and made plans to improve their prescribing, supported by feedback from a pharmacist. Quantitative data in the form of prescribing error prevalence data were collected on 1 day per week before, during and after the intervention period (between November 2015 and March 2017). Qualitative data in the form of individual semi‐structured interviews were collected with a subset of participants, to evaluate their experience. Quantitative data were analysed using a statistical process chart and qualitative data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

During the data collection period, 923 patient drug charts were reviewed by pharmacists who identified 1219 prescribing errors overall. Implementation of this feedback approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of prescribing errors, from 19.0/d to 11.7/d (estimated to equate to 38% reduction; P < .0001). Pharmacist‐led video‐stimulated prescribing feedback was feasible and positively received by participants, who appreciated the reinforcement of good practice as well as the opportunity to reflect on and improve practice.

Conclusions

Feedback to doctors‐in‐training tends to be infrequent and often negative, but this feasible feedback strategy significantly reduced prescribing errors and was well received by the target audience as a supportive developmental approach.

An exploratory study into the use of Lean Six Sigma to reduce medication errors in the Norwegian public healthcare context

PURPOSE

Medication errors are a significant cause of injury in Norwegian hospitals. The purpose of this study is to explore how Lean Six Sigma (LSS) has been used in the Norwegian public health-care context to reduce medication errors.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A mixed method approach was used to gather data from participants working in the four regions served by the Norway health authorities. A survey questionnaire was distributed to 38 health-care practitioners and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 health-care practitioners.

FINDINGS

The study finds that the implementation of LSS in the Norwegian public health-care context is still in its infancy. This is amidst several challenges faced by Norwegian hospitals such as the lack of top-management support, lack of LSS training and coaching and a lack of awareness around the benefits of LSS in health care.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Because of the large geographical area, it was difficult to reach participants from all health regions in Norway. However, the study managed to assess the current status of LSS implementation through the participants' perspectives. This is a fruitful area for future research whereby an action research methodology could be used.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first empirical study into the use of LSS methodology in reducing medication errors. In addition, this study is valuable for health-care practitioners and professionals as a guideline to achieve the optimal benefit of LSS implementation to reduce medication errors.

Systematic review of computerized prescriber order entry and clinical decision support

PURPOSE

Results of a systematic review of published data on the effect of computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support on medication error (ME) and adverse drug event (ADE) rates are presented.

METHODS

Literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases were conducted to identify English- and Spanish-language articles on selected CPOE outcomes published from 1995 through 2016; in addition, 5 specific journals were searched for pertinent articles published during the period 2010-16. Publications on controlled prospective studies and before-and-after studies that assessed MEs and/or ADEs as main outcomes were selected for inclusion in the review.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Data on MEs and ADEs could not be pooled, mainly due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and study methodologies. The reviewed evidence indicated that CPOE implementation led to an overall reduction in errors at the prescription stage of the medication-use process (relative risk reduction, 0.29 [95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.85]; I ² = 99%) and reductions in most types of prescription errors, but CPOE also resulted in the emergence of other types of errors.

CONCLUSION

CPOE reduces the overall ME rate in the prescription process, as well as specific types of errors, such as wrong dose or strength, wrong drug, frequency, administration route, and drug-drug interaction errors. The implementation of CPOE can lead to new errors, such as wrong drug selection from drop-down menus.

The usability aspects of medication-related decision support systems in the inpatient setting: A systematic review

Effort has been made to study the effect of medication-related clinical decision support systems in the inpatient setting; however, there is not much known about the usability of these systems. The goal of this study is to systematically review studies that focused on the usability aspects such as effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of these systems. We systematically searched relevant articles in Scopus, Embase, and PubMed from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2016, and found 22 articles. Based on Van Welie’s usability model, we categorized usability aspects in terms of usage indicators and means. Our results showed that evidence was mainly found for effectiveness and efficiency. They showed positive results in the usage indicators errors and safety and performance speed. The means warnings and adaptability also had mostly positive results. To date, the effects satisfaction of clinical decision support system remains understudied. Aspects such as memorability, learnability, and consistency require more attention.

Pharmacist-Initiated Medication Error-Reporting and Monitoring Programme in a Developing Country Scenario

Medication errors (MEs) often prelude guilt and fear in health care professionals (HCPs), thereby resulting in under-reporting and further compromising patient safety. To improve patient safety, we conducted a study on the implementation of a voluntary medication error-reporting and monitoring programme. The ME reporting system was established using the principles based on prospective, voluntary, open, anonymous, and stand-alone surveillance in a tertiary care teaching hospital located in South India. A prospective observational study was carried out for three years and a voluntary Medication Error-reporting Form was developed to report medication errors MEs that had occurred in patients of either sex were included in the study, and the reporters were given the choice to remain anonymous. The analysis was carried out and discussed with HCPs to minimise the recurrence. A total of 1310 medication errors were reported among 20,256 hospitalised patients and the incidence was 6.4%. Common aetiologies were administration errors [501 (38.2%)], followed by prescribing and transcribing errors [363 (28%)]. Root-cause of these MEs were distractions, workload, and communications. Analgesics/antipyretics (19.4%) and antibiotics (15.7%) were the most commonly implicated classes of medications. A clinical pharmacist initiated non-punitive anonymous ME reporting system could improve patient safety.

Evaluation of out-patient prescriptions in rural part of central Gujarat

Background:

The prescription error is a failure in the prescription writing process leading to wrong instructions about the identity of the recipient, the identity of the drug, the formulation, dose, route, timing, frequency, and duration of administration. This study is an effort directed to find errors in prescription writing and interventions to improve on such error-prone practices of prescription writing.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional, observational study conducted to analyze the prescription writing errors in the outpatient department in the rural area of Anand district of Central Gujarat. Prescriptions were collected from two nearby rural areas of Anand city-Petlad and Anklav. The prescription copies so-obtained were analyzed as per the WHO guidelines for “Prescription Writing Errors.”

Results:

Overall, 191 prescriptions were collected from both rural areas in the study. The highest number of prescriptions was collected from general practitioners, followed by surgeons and gynecologists. Name, qualification, and address of prescribers were mentioned in all the prescriptions while registration number was mentioned only in 14.10% of prescriptions. The esoteric symbol was mentioned in 63% of prescriptions. Prescribers signed their prescription only in 48% of prescriptions. A total of 420 drugs were prescribed to the patients in the study. All but one drug were prescribed by brand name. Dosage form and route of administration of drugs were mentioned in >60% of drugs.

Conclusion:

Most medical schools provide some training in prescribing to medical undergraduates; however, this training is perceived to be suboptimal by medical students and junior doctors. Such training programs are the need of the hour.

Adverse Drug Events and Medication Errors in African Hospitals: A Systematic Review

Background

Medication errors and adverse drug events are universal problems contributing to patient harm but the magnitude of these problems in Africa remains unclear.

Objective

The objective of this study was to systematically investigate the literature on the extent of medication errors and adverse drug events, and the factors contributing to medication errors in African hospitals.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Global Health databases from inception to 31 August, 2017 and hand searched the reference lists of included studies. Original research studies of any design published in English that investigated adverse drug events and/or medication errors in any patient population in the hospital setting in Africa were included. Descriptive statistics including median and interquartile range were presented.

Results

Fifty-one studies were included; of these, 33 focused on medication errors, 15 on adverse drug events, and three studies focused on medication errors and adverse drug events. These studies were conducted in nine (of the 54) African countries. In any patient population, the median (interquartile range) percentage of patients reported to have experienced any suspected adverse drug event at hospital admission was 8.4% (4.5–20.1%), while adverse drug events causing admission were reported in 2.8% (0.7–6.4%) of patients but it was reported that a median of 43.5% (20.0–47.0%) of the adverse drug events were deemed preventable. Similarly, the median mortality rate attributed to adverse drug events was reported to be 0.1% (interquartile range 0.0–0.3%). The most commonly reported types of medication errors were prescribing errors, occurring in a median of 57.4% (interquartile range 22.8–72.8%) of all prescriptions and a median of 15.5% (interquartile range 7.5–50.6%) of the prescriptions evaluated had dosing problems. Major contributing factors for medication errors reported in these studies were individual practitioner factors (e.g. fatigue and inadequate knowledge/training) and environmental factors, such as workplace distraction and high workload.

Conclusion

Medication errors in the African healthcare setting are relatively common, and the impact of adverse drug events is substantial but many are preventable. This review supports the design and implementation of preventative strategies targeting the most likely contributing factors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-017-0125-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of computerized physician order entry on prescription orders: A quasi-experimental study in Iran

Background: One way to reduce medical errors associated with physician orders is computerized physician order entry (CPOE) software. This study was conducted to compare prescription orders between 2 groups before and after CPOE implementation in a hospital. Methods: We conducted a before-after prospective study in 2 intensive care unit (ICU) wards (as intervention and control wards) in the largest tertiary public hospital in South of Iran during 2014 and 2016. All prescription orders were validated by a clinical pharmacist and an ICU physician. The rates of ordering the errors in medical orders were compared before (manual ordering) and after implementation of the CPOE. A standard checklist was used for data collection. For the data analysis, SPSS Version 21, descriptive statistics, and analytical tests such as McNemar, chi-square, and logistic regression were used. Results: The CPOE significantly decreased 2 types of errors, illegible orders and lack of writing the drug form, in the intervention ward compared to the control ward (p< 0.05); however, the 2 errors increased due to the defect in the CPOE (p< 0.001). The use of CPOE decreased the prescription errors from 19% to 3% (p= 0.001), However, no differences were observed in the control ward (p<0.05). In addition, more errors occurred in the morning shift (p< 0.001). Conclusion: In general, the use of CPOE significantly reduced the prescription errors. Nonetheless, more caution should be exercised in the use of this system, and its deficiencies should be resolved. Furthermore, it is recommended that CPOE be used to improve the quality of delivered services in hospitals.

Learning from errors: analysis of medication order voiding in CPOE systems

OBJECTIVE

Medication order voiding allows clinicians to indicate that an existing order was placed in error. We explored whether the order voiding function could be used to record and study medication ordering errors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined medication orders from an academic medical center for a 6-year period (2006-2011; n  = 5 804 150). We categorized orders based on status (void, not void) and clinician-provided reasons for voiding. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate the association between order voiding and clinician, patient, and order characteristics. We conducted chart reviews on a random sample of voided orders ( n  = 198) to investigate the rate of medication ordering errors among voided orders, and the accuracy of clinician-provided reasons for voiding.

RESULTS

We found that 0.49% of all orders were voided. Order voiding was associated with clinician type (physician, pharmacist, nurse, student, other) and order type (inpatient, prescription, home medications by history). An estimated 70 ± 10% of voided orders were due to medication ordering errors. Clinician-provided reasons for voiding were reasonably predictive of the actual cause of error for duplicate orders (72%), but not for other reasons.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Medication safety initiatives require availability of error data to create repositories for learning and training. The voiding function is available in several electronic health record systems, so order voiding could provide a low-effort mechanism for self-reporting of medication ordering errors. Additional clinician training could help increase the quality of such reporting.

Extending Effects of Salience and Payoffs on Stimulus Discrimination: An Experimental Simulation of Prescription Checking

This study applied specific aspects of signal detection theory (target salience and decision payoffs) to examine the associations among measured attention and accuracy on a stimulus discrimination task patterned after prescription checking. 85 participants completed the d2 Test of Attention and were assigned to either a control condition with general task instructions or a payoff condition with points accumulated or lost based on ultimate performance. Participants checked simulated product order forms for clerical errors for 40 min. The stimulus set included errors that varied with respect to their ease of detection or salience. Analysis indicated that measured attention was related to performance accuracy and speed as expected. Also decision payoffs significantly increased accuracy on the discrimination task regardless of target salience and discrimination accuracy decreased as the salience of the stimulus mismatches decreased. Implications for real-world applications of signal detection theory to tasks such as prescription checking are explored.

Tools for Assessing Potential Significance of Pharmacist Interventions: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Assessing the significance of pharmacist interventions (PIs) is essential to demonstrate the added value of pharmacists. Methods and tools for assessing the potential significance of PIs are diverse and their properties are questionable.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the tools available to assess the potential significance of PIs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for English- or French-language publications from 1986 to 2013 in PubMed, PsycINFO, PASCAL, and CINAHL. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and were abstracted for content, structure of tools, and validation process.

RESULTS

Of 873 citations screened, 82 distinct tools were identified from 133 studies. While clinical aspects were often defined quite clearly, terminology regarding humanistic, economic, and process-related aspects of PIs was omitted, incomplete, or ambiguous in most tools. The probabilities of consequences of PIs/drug-related problems were evaluated in 20/82 tools. Few tools simultaneously measured economic, clinical, humanistic, and process-related variables. Structure of the tools varied from an implicit, mono-dimensional tool to an explicit, multi-dimensional algorithm. Validation processes were diverse in terms of quantification and number of raters, rating method, and psychometric parameters. Of 133 identified studies, there was limited evidence of validity (8/133, 6.0%), inter-rater reliability (49/133, 36.8%), and intra-rater reliability (2/133, 1.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of tools focused primarily on assessing clinical aspects and failed to detect comprehensive impacts. The heterogeneity of tools and assessment processes hindered our ability to synthesize the results of evaluations. Limited results for their validity and reliability cast doubt on the credibility of this methodology for justification of the value of PIs. Recommendations for development of tools with optimal theoretical, pragmatic, and psychometric properties are proposed.

A systematic review of the prevalence and incidence of prescribing errors with high-risk medicines in hospitals

WHAT IS KNOWN

Prescribing errors are the most common type of error in the medication use process. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding the prevalence or incidence of prescribing errors in high-risk medicines (HRMs). HRMs bear a heightened risk of causing significant patient harm when they are used in error.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to systematically investigate the literature regarding the prevalence and incidence of prescribing errors in HRMs in inpatient settings.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed based on four categories of keywords: prescribing errors, HRMs, hospital inpatients, and prevalence or incidence. All keywords were searched for in Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. The search was limited to English quantitative studies that reported the incidence or prevalence of prescribing errors by medical prescribers, whether they were seniors or juniors, since 1985.

RESULTS

Of the 3507 records identified, nine studies met the review criteria. The most frequent denominator in the included studies was medication orders, in eight studies, ranged from 0·24 to 89·6 errors per 100 orders of HRMs. Two studies reported 107 and 218 errors per 100 admissions prescribed HRMs, and one study reported 27·2 errors per 100 prescriptions with a HRM. The incidence of prescribing errors could not be calculated.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The prevalence of prescribing errors in HRMs in the inpatient setting has a very wide range that reflects the different data collection methods used within the included studies. Future studies in prescribing errors should use standardized approaches to enable comparison.

The effect of electronic medical record system use on communication between pharmacists and prescribers

BACKGROUND

The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) is becoming increasingly common in health care settings. Research shows that EMRs have the potential to reduce instances of medication errors and improve communication between pharmacists and prescribers; however, more research is required to demonstrate whether this is true. This study aims to determine the effect of a newly implemented EMR system on communication between pharmacists and primary care clinicians.

METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis of primary care EMR data comparing faxed pharmacy communications captured before and after the implementation of an EMR system at an academic family medicine clinic. Communication requests were classified into the following various categories: refill accepted, refill denied, clarification, incorrect dose, interaction, drug insurance/coverage application, new prescription request, supplies request, continued care information, duplicate fax substitution, opioid early release request, confirmation by phone call, and other.

RESULTS

The number and percentage of clarification requests, interaction notifications, and incorrect dose notifications were lower after the implementation of the EMR system. The number and percentage of refills accepted and new prescription requests increased after the implementation of the EMR system.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of an EMR in an academic family medicine clinic had a significant effect on the volume of communication between pharmacists and prescribers. The amount of clarification requests and incorrect dosing communications decreased after EMR implementation. This suggests that EMRs improve prescribing safety. The increased amount of refills accepted and new prescription requests post EMR implementation suggests that the EMR is capable of changing prescription patterns.

The Study of Prescribing Errors Among General Dentists

INTRODUCTION

In dentistry, medicine often prescribed to relieve pain and remove infections .Therefore, wrong prescription can lead to a range of problems including lack of pain, antimicrobial treatment failure and the development of resistance to antibiotics.

MATERIALS & METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, the aim was to evaluate the common errors in written prescriptions by general dentists in Kermanshah in 2014. Dentists received a questionnaire describing five hypothetical patient and the appropriate prescription for the patient in question was asked. Information about age, gender, work experience and the admission in university was collected. The frequency of errors in prescriptions was determined. Data by SPSS 20statistical software and using statistical t-test, chi-square and Pearson correlation were analyzed (0.05> P).

RESULTS

A total of 180 dentists (62.6% male and 37.4% female) with a mean age of 8.23 ± 39.199 participated in this study. Prescription errors include the wrong in pharmaceutical form (11%), not having to write therapeutic dose (13%), writing wrong dose (14%), typos (15%), error prescription (23%) and writing wrong number of drugs (24%). The most frequent errors in the administration of antiviral drugs (31%) and later stages of antifungal drugs (30%), analgesics (23%) and antibiotics (16%) was observed. Males dentists compared with females dentists showed more frequent errors (P=0.046). Error frequency among dentists with a long work history (P>0.001) and the acceptance in the university except for the entrance examination (P=0.041) had a statistically significant relationship.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the written prescription by general dentists examined contained significant errors and improve prescribing through continuing education of dentists is essential.

Interventions for reducing medication errors in children in hospital

BACKGROUND

Many hospitalised patients are affected by medication errors (MEs) that may cause discomfort, harm and even death. Children are at especially high risk of harm as the result of MEs because such errors are potentially more hazardous to them than to adults. Until now, interventions to reduce MEs have led to only limited improvements.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing MEs and related harm in hospitalised children.

SEARCH METHODS

The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following sources for primary studies: The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and the Health Technology Assessments (HTA) database; MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, Web of Science (citation indexes and conference proceedings) and the EPOC Register of Studies. Related reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Review authors searched grey literature sources and trial registries. They handsearched selected journals, contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. They conducted searches in November 2013 and November 2014. They applied neither language nor date limits.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series investigating interventions to improve medication safety in hospitalised children (≤ 18 years). Participants were healthcare professionals authorised to prescribe, dispense or administer medications. Outcome measures included MEs, (potential) patient harm, resource utilisation and unintended consequences of the interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the EPOC data collection checklist. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence. We described results narratively and presented them using GRADE tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies describing five different interventions: participation of a clinical pharmacist in a clinical team (n = 2), introduction of a computerised physician order entry system (n = 2), implementation of a barcode medication administration system (n = 1), use of a structured prescribing form (n = 1) and implementation of a check and control checklist in combination with feedback (n = 1).Clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Although some interventions described in this review show a decrease in MEs, the results are not consistent, and none of the studies resulted in a significant reduction in patient harm. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality and strengfh of the evidence are low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence on effective interventions to prevent MEs in a paediatric population in hospital is limited. Comparative studies with robust study designs are needed to investigate interventions including components that focus on specific paediatric safety issues.

Medication error reporting in a university teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

Medication errors are common in the hospital setting. Little is known about these errors in Saudi Arabia. The objective of the current study was to explore the rate of reporting medication errors and factors associated with the root causes of these errors in a large tertiary teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This study was conducted at the university teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All occurrence/variant reports related to medication errors were documented on a hospital Web-based medication error form that was designed to capture information on all aspects. Medication error reports were reviewed and reported at quarterly intervals over a 1-year period (November 2009 to October 2010).

RESULTS

The medication error rate over the 1-year study period was 0.4% (949 medication errors for 240,000 prescriptions). During this period, 14 (1.5%) errors were categorized as resulting in any harm to the patient (all category E). Medication errors were reported predominantly at the prescribing stage of the medication process (89%). The most common types of errors were prescribing (44%) and improper dose/quantity (31%). Antibiotics (12%), antihypertensive agents (10%), and oral hypoglycemic agents (8%) were the pharmacological classes of medication most commonly involved with errors. Nonspecific performance deficit (43%), knowledge deficit (28%), and illegible or unclear handwriting (17%) were the main reported causes of error.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication errors are underreported in a tertiary teaching hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to stimulate medication errors reporting by health-care providers.

Governing patient safety: lessons learned from a mixed methods evaluation of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard in two English NHS hospitals

BACKGROUND

Relatively little is known about how scorecards presenting performance indicators influence medication safety. We evaluated the effects of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard piloted in two English NHS hospitals and factors influencing these.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods, controlled before and after design. At baseline, wards were audited on medication safety indicators; during the 'feedback' phase scorecard results were presented to intervention wards on a weekly basis over 7 weeks. We interviewed 49 staff, including clinicians and managers, about scorecard implementation.

RESULTS

At baseline, 18.7% of patients (total n=630) had incomplete allergy documentation; 53.4% of patients (n=574) experienced a drug omission in the preceding 24 h; 22.5% of omitted doses were classified as 'critical'; 22.1% of patients (n=482) either had ID wristbands not reflecting their allergy status or no ID wristband; and 45.3% of patients (n=237) had drugs that were either unlabelled or labelled for another patient in their drug lockers. The quantitative analysis found no significant improvement in intervention wards following scorecard feedback. Interviews suggested staff were interested in scorecard feedback and described process and culture changes. Factors influencing scorecard implementation included 'normalisation' of errors, study duration, ward leadership, capacity to engage and learning preferences.

DISCUSSION

Presenting evidence-based performance indicators may potentially influence staff behaviour. Several practical and cultural factors may limit feedback effectiveness and should be considered when developing improvement interventions. Quality scorecards should be designed with care, attending to evidence of indicators' effectiveness and how indicators and overall scorecard composition fit the intended audience.

Identification of prescribing errors by pre-registration student nurses: a cross-sectional observational study utilising a prescription medication quiz

BACKGROUND

Nurses are central to the aim of ensuring medication safety, through being predominantly responsible for the administration of medications to patients in acute care settings. Correct identification of prescribing errors by nurses helps to ensure that errors are detected early in the process of administering medications to patients. The limited available research however, suggests that both qualified and student nurses have difficulty in identifying prescribing errors with high accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To collect baseline data on pre-registration student nurses' ability to identify prescribing errors.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional observational design utilising a prescription medication quiz was employed. The quiz contained six prescriptions that simulated a national inpatient medication chart, and included common types of prescribing errors, as identified in the literature.

SETTINGS

One Australian university.

PARTICIPANTS

Third year pre-registration student nurses enrolled in a clinical nursing course in a Bachelor of Nursing programme.

METHODS

Statistical analysis of the data was performed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson's r) 2-tailed test, and independent sample t-tests.

RESULTS

Results from the 192 participants suggested that student nurses had difficulties in identifying the prescribing errors built into the prescription medication quiz. Of the five prescriptions containing an error, 7.3% of students identified all 5 errors, 13% identified 4, 21.9% identified 3, 26.6% identified 2, and 20.3% identified only one error.

CONCLUSIONS

It is vital for patient safety that student nurses have greater awareness of, and ability to, correctly identify prescribing errors. The ability of individual students to correctly identify all five errors in this study was poor. These results support the need for educators to consider alternative approaches to educating students about medication safety. Recommendations with the potential to address this gap in education through the use of simulation are proposed.

Detection and correct handling of prescribing errors in Dutch hospital pharmacies using test patients

BACKGROUND

Hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians play a major role in detecting prescribing errors by medication surveillance. At present the frequency of detected and correctly handled prescribing errors is unclear, as are factors associated with correct handling.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the frequency of detection of prescribing errors and the frequency of correct handling, as well as factors associated with correct handling of prescribing errors by hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

SETTING

This study was conducted in 57 Dutch hospital pharmacies.

METHOD

Prospective observational study with test patients, using a case-control design to identify factors associated with correct handling. A questionnaire was used to collect the potential factors. Test patients containing prescribing errors were developed by an expert panel of hospital pharmacists (a total of 40 errors in nine medication records divided among three test patients; each test patient was used in 3 rounds; on average 4.5 prescribing error per patient per round). Prescribing errors were defined as dosing errors or therapeutic errors (contra-indication, drug-drug interaction, (pseudo)duplicate medication). The errors were selected on relevance and unequivocalness. The panel also defined how the errors should be handled in practice using national guidelines and this was defined as 'correct handling'. The test patients had to be treated as real patients while conducting medication surveillance. The pharmacists and technicians were asked to report detected errors to the investigator.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The percentages of detected and correctly handled prescribing errors were the main outcome measures. Factors associated with correct handling were determined, using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine percent of the total number of intentionally added prescribing errors were detected and 57 % were handled correctly by the hospital pharmacists and technicians. The use of a computer system for medication surveillance compared to no computer system was independently associated with correct handling [odds ratio (OR) 15.39 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.62-65.50] for computerized physician order entry system; OR 15.40 (95 % CI 3.61-65.70) for order entry by pharmacy technicians), but because the reference category contained only one hospital these results can't be interpreted. Furthermore, manual screening of dosages in children with or without computerized surveillance compared to no dosage checks for children [OR 2.02 (95 % CI 1.06-3.84)], qualified pharmacy technicians compared to no qualified pharmacy technicians [OR 1.32 (95 % CI 1.03-1.67)] and pharmacy technicians using protocols compared to ones not using protocols [OR 1.30 (95 % CI 1.04-1.61)] were independently associated with correct handling.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the quality of medication surveillance in Dutch hospital pharmacies can be subject to improvement and the identified factors may give direction to such improvements.

Educational interventions to improve prescribing competency: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on educational interventions to improve prescribing and identify educational methods that improve prescribing competency in both medical and non-medical prescribers.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted. The databases Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for articles in English published between January 1990 and July 2013.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Medical and non-medical prescribers.

INTERVENTION

Education-based interventions to aid improvement in prescribing competency.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Improvements in prescribing competency (knows how) or performance (shows how) as defined by Miller's competency model. This was primarily demonstrated through prescribing examinations, changes in prescribing habits or adherence to guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Studies were categorised by their method of assessment, with 20 studies assessing prescribing competence and 27 assessing prescribing performance. A wide variety of educational interventions were employed, with different outcome measures and methods of assessments. In particular, six studies demonstrated that specific prescribing training using the WHO Guide to Good Prescribing increased prescribing competency in a wide variety of settings. Continuing medical education in the form of academic detailing and personalised prescriber feedback also yielded positive results. Only four studies evaluated educational interventions targeted at non-medical prescribers, highlighting that further research is needed in this area.

CONCLUSIONS

A broad range of educational interventions have been conducted to improve prescribing competency. The WHO Guide to Good Prescribing has the largest body of evidence to support its use and is a promising model for the design of targeted prescribing courses. There is a need for further development and evaluation of educational methods for non-medical prescribers.

Types and severity of medication errors in Iran; a review of the current literature

Medication error (ME) is the most common single preventable cause of adverse drug events which negatively affects patient safety. ME prevalence is a valuable safety indicator in healthcare system. Inadequate studies on ME, shortage of high-quality studies and wide variations in estimations from developing countries including Iran, decreases the reliability of ME evaluations. In order to clarify the status of MEs, we aimed to review current available literature on this subject from Iran. We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST and also Persian databases (IranMedex, and SID) up to October 2012 to find studies on adults and children about prescription, transcription, dispensing, and administration errors. Two authors independently selected and one of them reviewed and extracted data for types, definitions and severity of MEs. The results were classified based on different stages of drug delivery process. Eighteen articles (11 Persian and 7 English) were included in our review. All study designs were cross-sectional and conducted in hospital settings. Nursing staff and students were the most frequent populations under observation (12 studies; 66.7%). Most of studies did not report the overall frequency of MEs aside from ME types. Most of studies (15; 83.3%) reported prevalence of administration errors between 14.3%-70.0%. Prescribing error prevalence ranged from 29.8%-47.8%. The prevalence of dispensing and transcribing errors were from 11.3%-33.6% and 10.0%-51.8% respectively. We did not find any follow up or repeated studies. Only three studies reported findings on severity of MEs. The most reported types of and the highest percentages for any type of ME in Iran were administration errors. Studying ME in Iran is a new area considering the duration and number of publications. Wide ranges of estimations for MEs in different stages may be because of the poor quality of studies with diversity in definitions, methods, and populations. For gaining better insights into ME in Iran, we suggest studying sources, underreporting of, and preventive measures for MEs.

A review of medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System in England and Wales over 6 years (2005-2010)

A review of all medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England in Wales between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2010 was undertaken. The 526,186 medication incident reports represented 9.68% of all patient safety incidents. Medication incidents from acute general hospitals (394,951) represented 75% of reports. There were relatively smaller numbers of medication incident reports (44,952) from primary care, representing 8.5% of the total. Of 86,821 (16%) medication incidents reporting actual patient harm, 822 (0.9%) resulted in death or severe harm. The incidents involving medicine administration (263,228; 50%) and prescribing (97,097; 18%) were the process steps with the largest number of reports. Omitted and delayed medicine (82,028; 16%) and wrong dose (80,170; 15%) represented the largest error categories. Thirteen medicines or therapeutic groups accounted for 377 (46%) of the incidents with outcomes of death or severe harm. The National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has issued guidance to help minimize incidents with many of these medicines. Many recent incidents could have been prevented if the NPSA guidance had been better implemented. It is recommended that healthcare organizations in all sectors establish an effective infrastructure to oversee and promote safe medication practice, including an annual medication safety report. In the future, preventable harms from medication incidents can be further minimized by; the continued use of the NRLS to identify and prioritize important actions to improve medication safety, a central organization continuing to issue medication safety guidance to the service and better methods to ensure that the National Health Service has implemented this guidance.

Prescribing errors in hospital practice

Prescribing errors that occur in hospitals have been a source of concern for decades. This narrative review describes some of the recent work in this field. There is considerable heterogeneity in definitions and methods used in research on prescribing errors. There are three definitions that are used most frequently (one for prescribing errors specifically and two for the broader arena of medication errors), although many others have also been used. Research methods used focus primarily on investigating either the prescribing process (such as errors in the dose prescribed) or the outcomes for the patient (such as preventable adverse drug events). This complicates attempts to calculate the overall prevalence or incidence of errors. Errors have been reported in handwritten descriptions of almost 15% and with electronic prescribing of up to 8% of orders. Errors are more likely to be identified on admission to hospital than at any other time (usually failure to continue ongoing medication) and errors of dose occur most commonly throughout the patients' stay. Although there is evidence that electronic prescribing reduces the number of errors, new types of errors also occur. The literature on causes of error shows some commonality with both handwritten and electronic prescribing but there are also causes that are unique to each. A greater understanding of the prevalence of the complex causal pathways found and the differences between the pathways of minor and severe errors is necessary. Such an understanding would underpin theoretically-based interventions to reduce the occurrence of prescribing errors.

Medication errors in the Middle East countries: a systematic review of the literature

Background

Medication errors are a significant global concern and can cause serious medical consequences for patients. Little is known about medication errors in Middle Eastern countries. The objectives of this systematic review were to review studies of the incidence and types of medication errors in Middle Eastern countries and to identify the main contributory factors involved.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature related to medication errors in Middle Eastern countries was conducted in October 2011 using the following databases: Embase, Medline, Pubmed, the British Nursing Index and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature. The search strategy included all ages and languages. Inclusion criteria were that the studies assessed or discussed the incidence of medication errors and contributory factors to medication errors during the medication treatment process in adults or in children.

Results

Forty-five studies from 10 of the 15 Middle Eastern countries met the inclusion criteria. Nine (20 %) studies focused on medication errors in paediatric patients. Twenty-one focused on prescribing errors, 11 measured administration errors, 12 were interventional studies and one assessed transcribing errors. Dispensing and documentation errors were inadequately evaluated. Error rates varied from 7.1 % to 90.5 % for prescribing and from 9.4 % to 80 % for administration. The most common types of prescribing errors reported were incorrect dose (with an incidence rate from 0.15 % to 34.8 % of prescriptions), wrong frequency and wrong strength. Computerised physician rder entry and clinical pharmacist input were the main interventions evaluated. Poor knowledge of medicines was identified as a contributory factor for errors by both doctors (prescribers) and nurses (when administering drugs). Most studies did not assess the clinical severity of the medication errors.

Conclusion

Studies related to medication errors in the Middle Eastern countries were relatively few in number and of poor quality. Educational programmes on drug therapy for doctors and nurses are urgently needed.

Impact of computerized physician order entry on medication errors

BACKGROUND

Information is scarce on the impact of the clinical electronic record on the frequency and severity of medication errors in acute geriatric patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analytical and descriptive pre-post study was conducted on the implementation of computerized provider order entry systems (CPOE), over a 6 year period. A voluntary reporting system was used to detect the medication errors using the IR2 report form of the UK National Health Service, the Global Trigger Tool and the walk rounds with the Pharmacy Service. The severity categories were taken from the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) Index Categorizing Errors.

RESULTS

A total of 1887 medication errors (1553 patients) were detected in the period of study, and represented the first adverse event reported (29.3%). 8.5 adverse events per 100 admissions were found (0.24 in the categories E through I) and the prescription errors represented a 27.6%. By drugs dispensed, adverse events were 2.07 times more frequent in the 3 year period (2007-2009) with electronic clinical record than in the 3 year period with the hand-written system (2004-2006), being more frequent with antibiotics (1.92 times), antipyretic (2.21 times) and opiates (2.72 times). For serious errors and by doses dispensed, there were 5.18 times less frequent serious errors in the period related to the electronic record, drug omission (46.8 times less frequent), wrong dose (10.53 times) and antibiotics (10.84 times).

CONCLUSION

Frequent medication errors were found in acute geriatric patients. An increase in medication errors and a decline in the severity of the detected errors were found in relationship to the electronic clinical record. For these reasons, the implementation of the electronic clinical record should be monitored.

Pilot of a National Inpatient Medication Chart in Australia: improving prescribing safety and enabling prescribing training

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Prescribing errors are common and are caused by multiple factors. Standard medication charts have been recommended by British and Australian Health services. A study of a standard medication chart in five hospitals in one state of Australia significantly reduced prescribing errors.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

A standard medication chart developed in one area can be adopted through a collaborative process and successfully implemented across a diverse country resulting in similar reductions in prescribing errors. Three of the four stages of the prescribing process (information gathering, decision making and communication of instructions) can be improved by the use of an improved standard medication chart. The introduction of a standard medication chart has enabled development of standard prescribing education programmes.

AIMS

To establish whether a standard national inpatient medication chart (NIMC) could be implemented across a range of sites in Australia and reduce frequency of prescribing errors and improve the completion of adverse drug reaction (ADR) and warfarin documentation.

METHODS

A medication chart, which had previously been implemented in one state, was piloted in 22 public hospitals across Australia. Prospective before and after observational audits of prescribing errors were undertaken by trained nurse and pharmacist teams. The introduction of the chart was accompanied by local education of prescribers and presentation of baseline audit findings. RESULTS After the introduction of the NIMC, prescribing errors decreased by almost one-third, from 6383 errors in 15,557 orders, a median (range) of 3 (0-48) per patient to 4293 in 15,416 orders, 2 (0-45) per patient (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.001). The documentation of drugs causing previous ADRs increased significantly from 81.9% to 88.9% of drugs (χ(2) test, P < 0.001). The documentation of the indication for warfarin increased from 12.1 to 34.3% (χ(2) test, P= 0.001) and the documentation of target INR increased from 10.8 to 70.0% (χ(2) test, P < 0.001) after implementation of the chart.

CONCLUSIONS

National implementation of a standard medication chart is possible. Similar reduction in the rate of prescribing errors can be achieved in multiple sites across one country. The consequent benefits for patient care and training of staff could be significant.

Validating reasons for medication discontinuation in electronic patient records at hospital discharge

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The accuracy of health care professionals in reporting safety events determines their usefulness for both system improvement and research. The study objectives were to: (1) validate (assess the accuracy of) the reasons recorded by doctors and pharmacists for discontinuing medication orders at discharge in a hospital's electronic patient records (EPR); (2) investigate the causes of any detected recording inaccuracy; and (3) collect preliminary data on the frequency and types of medication discontinuation.

METHODS

This was a validation study in one English hospital. The study comprised two steps: extraction of discontinued medication orders from the EPR followed by short structured interviews with doctors and pharmacists who made the discontinuation. A total of 104 discontinued orders were discussed during 15 face-to-face and six telephone interviews. The software package spss was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Duplication of therapy (27, 25.2%), omission of drug (23, 21.5%) and dosage regimen change (19, 17.8%) were the three most frequent reasons given for discontinuing medications. The majority of recorded discontinuation reasons were correct (100, 96.2%) and complete (101, 97.1%), and hence were judged accurate (97, 93.3%). The difference in accurate recording between doctors (15, 88.2%) and pharmacists (82, 94.3%) was not statistically significant. Potential causes of recording inaccuracy included: slip or lapse, lack of training, carelessness and electronic system rigidity.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that doctors and pharmacists recorded accurate reasons for the majority of the discontinued medication orders. It also showed that utilizing pharmacists' recorded reasons during clinical interventions using EPR was beneficial in understanding and characterizing prescribing errors. Although they require further research, the reasons identified present preliminary data about the most prevalent types of pharmacists' interventions during hospital discharge.

Pharmaceutical interventions on prescription problems in a Danish pharmacy setting

BACKGROUND

International studies regarding pharmacists' interventions towards prescription problems produce highly variable results. The only peer-reviewed study in a Danish setting estimated an intervention rate of 2.3 per 1,000 prescriptions. With the introduction of a new tool for registration, we hypothesized that a better estimate could be obtained.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to produce an up-to-date estimate of the extent and type of pharmacists' interventions towards prescription problems in a Danish pharmacy setting

SETTING

The study was conducted at Copenhagen Sønderbro Pharmacy, a large urban 24-hour pharmacy.

METHOD

Data were collected prospectively through an electronic form. All interventions were primarily classified as either clinical or administrative in nature, and further classified in a number of pre-determined subcategories. Furthermore, information about age, sex, time of day, the wording of the prescription, the performed intervention, the person performing the intervention and the type of prescriber were recorded. All entries were manually validated by a study pharmacist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The intervention rate, given as the number of interventions per 1,000 prescriptions.

RESULTS

We found 599 validated interventions. Thirty-two percent of the interventions were clinical and 68% administrative by nature. Fifty-one percent of the administrative and 35% of the clinical interventions were regarding antibiotics. In the study period, a total of 55,522 prescriptions were filled out together with 3,069 dose-dispensing packages, giving a rate of 10.2 (9.4-11.1) interventions per 1,000 prescriptions.

CONCLUSION

We found an intervention rate substantially higher than reported in previous Danish studies.

The epidemiology and type of medication errors reported to the National Poisons Information Centre of Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Medication errors are widely reported for hospitalised patients, but limited data are available for medication errors that occur in community-based and clinical settings. Epidemiological data from poisons information centres enable characterisation of trends in medication errors occurring across the healthcare spectrum.

AIM

The objective of this study was to characterise the epidemiology and type of medication errors reported to the National Poisons Information Centre (NPIC) of Ireland.

METHODS

A 3-year prospective study on medication errors reported to the NPIC was conducted from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2009 inclusive. Data on patient demographics, enquiry source, location, pharmaceutical agent(s), type of medication error, and treatment advice were collated from standardised call report forms. Medication errors were categorised as (i) prescribing error (i.e. physician error), (ii) dispensing error (i.e. pharmacy error), and (iii) administration error involving the wrong medication, the wrong dose, wrong route, or the wrong time.

RESULTS

Medication errors were reported for 2348 individuals, representing 9.56% of total enquiries to the NPIC over 3 years. In total, 1220 children and adolescents under 18 years of age and 1128 adults (≥ 18 years old) experienced a medication error. The majority of enquiries were received from healthcare professionals, but members of the public accounted for 31.3% (n = 736) of enquiries. Most medication errors occurred in a domestic setting (n = 2135), but a small number occurred in healthcare facilities: nursing homes (n = 110, 4.68%), hospitals (n = 53, 2.26%), and general practitioner surgeries (n = 32, 1.36%). In children, medication errors with non-prescription pharmaceuticals predominated (n = 722) and anti-pyretics and non-opioid analgesics, anti-bacterials, and cough and cold preparations were the main pharmaceutical classes involved. Medication errors with prescription medication predominated for adults (n = 866) and the major medication classes included anti-pyretics and non-opioid analgesics, psychoanaleptics, and psychleptic agents. Approximately 97% (n = 2279) of medication errors were as a result of drug administration errors (comprising a double dose [n = 1040], wrong dose [n = 395], wrong medication [n = 597], wrong route [n = 133], and wrong time [n = 110]). Prescribing and dispensing errors accounted for 0.68% (n = 16) and 2.26% (n = 53) of errors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Empirical data from poisons information centres facilitate the characterisation of medication errors occurring in the community and across the healthcare spectrum. Poison centre data facilitate the detection of subtle trends in medication errors and can contribute to pharmacovigilance. Collaboration between pharmaceutical manufacturers, consumers, medical, and regulatory communities is needed to advance patient safety and reduce medication errors.

Medicines Reconciliation on Admission to Inpatient Psychiatric Care: Findings from a UK Quality Improvement Programme

OBJECTIVE

Medication errors are a common cause of avoidable morbidity, and transfer between clinical settings is a known risk factor for such errors. Medicines reconciliation means there is no unintended discrepancy between the medication prescribed for a patient prior to admission and on admission. Our aim was to improve the quality of practice supporting medicines reconciliation at the point of admission to a psychiatric ward.

METHODS

An audit-based quality improvement programme (QIP), using the proxy measure for medicines reconciliation of two or more sources of information being consulted about current medicines, and compared.

RESULTS

At baseline audit, 42 Trusts submitted data for 1790 patients. At re-audit 16 months later, 43 Trusts submitted data for 2296 patients. While doctors were most commonly identified in Trust policies as having overall responsibility for medicines reconciliation, the task was most often undertaken by pharmacy staff, with most activity occurring within 24 h of admission. The proportion of patients in whom medicines reconciliation was possible was 71% at baseline and 79% at re-audit. In such patients, discrepancies were identified in 25% at baseline and 31% at re-audit; a small proportion of these discrepancies were clearly clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This QIP achieved modest improvement in medicines reconciliation practice.