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

The role of computerized decision support in reducing errors in selecting medicines for prescription: narrative review

This narrative review includes a summary of research examining prescribing errors, prescription decision making and the role computerized decision support plays in this decision-making process. A reduction in medication prescribing errors, specifically a reduction in the selection of inappropriate medications, is expected to result from the implementation of an effective computerized decision support system. Previous research has investigated the impact of the implementation of electronic systems on medication errors more broadly. This review examines the specific characteristics of decision support systems that may contribute to fewer knowledge-based mistakes in prescribing, and critically appraises the large volume of information available on the decision-making process of selecting medicines for prescription. The results highlight a need for work investigating what decision strategies are used by doctors with different levels of expertise in the prescribing of medications. The nature of the relationship between decision support and decision performance is not well understood and future research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which computerized decision support influences medication selection.

Medication prescribing errors in the prehospital setting and in the ED

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are a common cause of iatrogenic adverse drug events. The incidence and nature of medication errors during prehospital treatment have not been fully described.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to describe the incidence and characteristics of medication errors in adults during prehospital emergency treatment and in the emergency department (ED) and to identify risk factors for medication errors in those settings.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of adult patients transferred by emergency medical services to the ED of a university-affiliated hospital in Israel. The drugs administered in the mobile intensive care unit and in the ED were reviewed by 2 reviewers, who independently decided whether an error had occurred. The primary outcome was the number of drug errors per patient. Secondary outcomes were the type and severity of the errors and variables associated with increased incidence of drug errors.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1837 patients were brought to the ED by mobile intensive care unit vehicles. Five hundred thirty-six patient charts (29%) were randomly selected for review; 65 charts (12.12%) could not be found; thus, 471 charts were reviewed. In the emergency vehicle, 188 patients (45.63%) received medications; of those, 12.76% (24 patients) were subject to a medication error. The number of drugs administered and long evacuation times were associated with higher risk for an error (P<.01 and P=.011, respectively). The presence of a physician in the emergency vehicle did not alter the risk of an error (P=.95). In the ED, 332 patients (72.6%) received medications. Of those, medication errors occurred in 120 patients (36.1%). The more medications administered, the higher the risk of error (P<.01). Less errors occurred in trauma patients (P=.041).

CONCLUSION

More medication errors occur in the ED than in the emergency vehicles. Patients treated with multiple medications are more prone to medication errors.

Electronic prescribing reduces prescribing error in public hospitals

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the incidence of prescribing errors in a main public hospital in Pakistan and to assess the impact of introducing electronic prescribing system on the reduction of their incidence.

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are persistent in today's healthcare system. The impact of electronic prescribing on reducing errors has not been tested in developing world.

DESIGN

Prospective review of medication and discharge medication charts before and after the introduction of an electronic inpatient record and prescribing system.

METHODS

Inpatient records (n = 3300) and 1100 discharge medication sheets were reviewed for prescribing errors before and after the installation of electronic prescribing system in 11 wards.

RESULTS

Medications (13,328 and 14,064) were prescribed for inpatients, among which 3008 and 1147 prescribing errors were identified, giving an overall error rate of 22·6% and 8·2% throughout paper-based and electronic prescribing, respectively. Medications (2480 and 2790) were prescribed for discharge patients, among which 418 and 123 errors were detected, giving an overall error rate of 16·9% and 4·4% during paper-based and electronic prescribing, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Electronic prescribing has a significant effect on the reduction of prescribing errors.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Prescribing errors are commonplace in Pakistan public hospitals. The study evaluated the impact of introducing electronic inpatient records and electronic prescribing in the reduction of prescribing errors in a public hospital in Pakistan.

Pharmacists' interventions in prescribing errors at hospital discharge: an observational study in the context of an electronic prescribing system in a UK teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have an essential role in improving drug usage and preventing prescribing errors (PEs). PEs at the interface of care are common, sometimes leading to adverse drug events (ADEs). This was the first study to investigate, using a computerized search method, the number, types, severity, pharmacists' impact on PEs and predictors of PEs in the context of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) at hospital discharge.

METHOD

This was a retrospective, observational, 4-week study, carried out in 2008 in the Medical and Elderly Care wards of a 904-bed teaching hospital in the northwest of England, operating an e-prescribing system at discharge. Details were obtained, using a systematic computerized search of the system, of medication orders either entered by doctors and discontinued by pharmacists or entered by pharmacists. Meetings were conducted within 5 days of data extraction with pharmacists doing their routine clinical work, who categorized the occurrence, type and severity of their interventions using a scale. An independent senior pharmacist retrospectively rated the severity and potential impact, and subjectively judged, based on experience, whether any error was a computer-related error (CRE). Discrepancies were resolved by multidisciplinary discussion. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences was used for descriptive data analysis. For the PE predictors, a multivariate logistic regression was performed using STATA 7. Nine predictors were selected a priori from available prescribers', patients' and drug data.

RESULTS

There were 7920 medication orders entered for 1038 patients (doctors entered 7712 orders; pharmacists entered 208 omitted orders). There were 675 (8.5% of 7920) interventions by pharmacists; 11 were not associated with PEs. Incidences of erroneous orders and patients with error were 8.0% (95% CI 7.4, 8.5 [n = 630/7920]) and 20.4% (95% CI 18.1, 22.9 [n = 212/1038]), respectively. The PE incidence was 8.4% (95% CI 7.8, 9.0 [n = 664/7920]). The top three medications associated with PEs were paracetamol (acetaminophen; 30 [4.8%]), salbutamol (albuterol; 28 [4.4%]) and omeprazole (25 [4.0%]). Pharmacists intercepted 524 (83.2%) erroneous orders without referring to doctors, and 70% of erroneous orders within 24 hours. Omission (31.0%), drug selection (29.4%) and dosage regimen (18.1%) error types accounted for >75% of PEs. There were 18 (2.9%) serious, 481 (76.3%) significant and 131 (20.8%) minor erroneous orders. Most erroneous orders (469 [74.4%]) were rated as of significant severity and significant impact of pharmacists on PEs. CREs (n = 279) accounted for 44.3% of erroneous orders. There was a significant difference in severity between CREs and non-CREs (χ2 = 38.88; df = 4; p < 0.001), with CREs being less severe than non-CREs. Drugs with multiple oral formulations (odds ratio [OR] 2.1; 95% CI 1.25, 3.37; p = 0.004) and prescribing by junior doctors (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.08, 5.99; p = 0.03) were significant predictors of PEs.

CONCLUSIONS

PEs commonly occur at hospital discharge, even with the use of an e-prescribing system. User and computer factors both appeared to contribute to the high error rate. The e-prescribing system facilitated the systematic extraction of data to investigate PEs in hospital practice. Pharmacists play an important role in rapidly documenting and preventing PEs before they reach and possibly harm patients. Pharmacists should understand CREs, so they complement, rather than duplicate, the e-prescribing system's strengths.

Medication errors with electronic prescribing (eP): Two views of the same picture

BACKGROUND

Quantitative prospective methods are widely used to evaluate the impact of new technologies such as electronic prescribing (eP) on medication errors. However, they are labour-intensive and it is not always feasible to obtain pre-intervention data. Our objective was to compare the eP medication error picture obtained with retrospective quantitative and qualitative methods.

METHODS

The study was carried out at one English district general hospital approximately two years after implementation of an integrated electronic prescribing, administration and records system. QUANTITATIVE: A structured retrospective analysis was carried out of clinical records and medication orders for 75 randomly selected patients admitted to three wards (medicine, surgery and paediatrics) six months after eP implementation. QUALITATIVE: Eight doctors, 6 nurses, 8 pharmacy staff and 4 other staff at senior, middle and junior grades, and 19 adult patients on acute surgical and medical wards were interviewed. Staff interviews explored experiences of developing and working with the system; patient interviews focused on experiences of medicine prescribing and administration on the ward. Interview transcripts were searched systematically for accounts of medication incidents. A classification scheme was developed and applied to the errors identified in the records review.

RESULTS

The two approaches produced similar pictures of the drug use process. Interviews identified types of error identified in the retrospective notes review plus two eP-specific errors which were not detected by record review. Interview data took less time to collect than record review, and provided rich data on the prescribing process, and reasons for delays or non-administration of medicines, including "once only" orders and "as required" medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

The qualitative approach provided more understanding of processes, and some insights into why medication errors can happen. The method is cost-effective and could be used to supplement information from anonymous error reporting schemes.

The epidemiology of medication errors: the methodological difficulties

1. Medication errors should be amenable to epidemiological analysis, giving insights into the causes of error and the effects of interventions to prevent them or reduce harm from them. 2. There are formidable difficulties in establishing the rates of medication errors. 3. There is no agreement on a clear operational definition of the condition. 4. The methods used to enumerate cases so far have been unreliable or incomplete or both. 5. There is disagreement about whether cases of error that do not cause harm should be included in calculations of error rates. 6. When harm occurs in association with drug therapy, it is often unclear whether the harm might have been prevented, and its occurrence should therefore be considered to result from error. 7. The denominator for calculating the rate of error is both ill-defined and inconsistently measured. Better definitions, more complete evaluation, and more thorough impact assessment may improve matters.

Medication errors: prescribing faults and prescription errors

1. Medication errors are common in general practice and in hospitals. Both errors in the act of writing (prescription errors) and prescribing faults due to erroneous medical decisions can result in harm to patients. 2. Any step in the prescribing process can generate errors. Slips, lapses, or mistakes are sources of errors, as in unintended omissions in the transcription of drugs. Faults in dose selection, omitted transcription, and poor handwriting are common. 3. Inadequate knowledge or competence and incomplete information about clinical characteristics and previous treatment of individual patients can result in prescribing faults, including the use of potentially inappropriate medications. 4. An unsafe working environment, complex or undefined procedures, and inadequate communication among health-care personnel, particularly between doctors and nurses, have been identified as important underlying factors that contribute to prescription errors and prescribing faults. 5. Active interventions aimed at reducing prescription errors and prescribing faults are strongly recommended. These should be focused on the education and training of prescribers and the use of on-line aids. The complexity of the prescribing procedure should be reduced by introducing automated systems or uniform prescribing charts, in order to avoid transcription and omission errors. Feedback control systems and immediate review of prescriptions, which can be performed with the assistance of a hospital pharmacist, are also helpful. Audits should be performed periodically.

The epidemiology of medication errors: how many, how serious?

1. Errors will always occur in any system, but it is essential to identify causes and attempt to minimize risks. 2. Although it is difficult to quantify precisely the extent of medication errors, they are clearly frequent and often avoidable, representing a major threat to patient safety. 3. Many of the consequences of these errors can be prevented by the intervention of pharmacists. 4. Some errors are due to the conditions under which prescribers work; where possible these should be improved (for example, low staffing levels). 5. Computerized prescribing can help but can also generate its own inherent errors. 6. Improved training of prescribers at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels is vital, a fact that is now being belatedly recognized.

The causes of and factors associated with prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review

Prescribing errors are common, they result in adverse events and harm to patients and it is unclear how best to prevent them because recommendations are more often based on surmized rather than empirically collected data. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all informative published evidence concerning the causes of and factors associated with prescribing errors in specialist and non-specialist hospitals, collate it, analyse it qualitatively and synthesize conclusions from it. Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published between 1985-July 2008. The reference lists of all informative studies were searched for additional citations. To be included, a study had to be of handwritten prescriptions for adult or child inpatients that reported empirically collected data on the causes of or factors associated with errors. Publications in languages other than English and studies that evaluated errors for only one disease, one route of administration or one type of prescribing error were excluded. Seventeen papers reporting 16 studies, selected from 1268 papers identified by the search, were included in the review. Studies from the US and the UK in university-affiliated hospitals predominated (10/16 [62%]). The definition of a prescribing error varied widely and the included studies were highly heterogeneous. Causes were grouped according to Reason's model of accident causation into active failures, error-provoking conditions and latent conditions. The active failure most frequently cited was a mistake due to inadequate knowledge of the drug or the patient. Skills-based slips and memory lapses were also common. Where error-provoking conditions were reported, there was at least one per error. These included lack of training or experience, fatigue, stress, high workload for the prescriber and inadequate communication between healthcare professionals. Latent conditions included reluctance to question senior colleagues and inadequate provision of training. Prescribing errors are often multifactorial, with several active failures and error-provoking conditions often acting together to cause them. In the face of such complexity, solutions addressing a single cause, such as lack of knowledge, are likely to have only limited benefit. Further rigorous study, seeking potential ways of reducing error, needs to be conducted. Multifactorial interventions across many parts of the system are likely to be required.

Prescribing errors during hospital inpatient care: factors influencing identification by pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of prescribing errors identified by pharmacists in hospital inpatients and the factors influencing error identification rates by pharmacists throughout hospital admission.

SETTING

880-bed university teaching hospital in North-west England.

METHODS

Data about prescribing errors identified by pharmacists (median: 9 (range 4-17) collecting data per day) when conducting routine work were prospectively recorded on 38 randomly selected days over 18 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of new medication orders in which an error was identified; predictors of error identification rate, adjusted for workload and seniority of pharmacist, day of week, type of ward or stage of patient admission.

RESULTS

33,012 new medication orders were reviewed for 5,199 patients; 3,455 errors (in 10.5% of orders) were identified for 2,040 patients (39.2%; median 1, range 1-12). Most were problem orders (1,456, 42.1%) or potentially significant errors (1,748, 50.6%); 197 (5.7%) were potentially serious; 1.6% (n = 54) were potentially severe or fatal. Errors were 41% (CI: 28-56%) more likely to be identified at patient's admission than at other times, independent of confounders. Workload was the strongest predictor of error identification rates, with 40% (33-46%) less errors identified on the busiest days than at other times. Errors identified fell by 1.9% (1.5-2.3%) for every additional chart checked, independent of confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists routinely identify errors but increasing workload may reduce identification rates. Where resources are limited, they may be better spent on identifying and addressing errors immediately after admission to hospital.

Does computerized provider order entry reduce prescribing errors for hospital inpatients? A systematic review

Previous reviews have examined evidence of the impact of CPOE on medication errors, but have used highly variable definitions of "error". We attempted to answer a very focused question, namely, what evidence exists that CPOE systems reduce prescribing errors among hospital inpatients? We identified 13 papers (reporting 12 studies) published between 1998 and 2007. Nine demonstrated a significant reduction in prescribing error rates for all or some drug types. Few studies examined changes in error severity, but minor errors were most often reported as decreasing. Several studies reported increases in the rate of duplicate orders and failures to discontinue drugs, often attributed to inappropriate selection from a dropdown menu or to an inability to view all active medication orders concurrently. The evidence-base reporting the effectiveness of CPOE to reduce prescribing errors is not compelling and is limited by modest study sample sizes and designs. Future studies should include larger samples including multiple sites, controlled study designs, and standardized error and severity reporting. The role of decision support in minimizing severe prescribing error rates also requires investigation.

Impact of a computerized physician order-entry system

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine has urged the adoption of electronic prescribing systems in all health-care organizations by 2010. Accordingly, computerized physician order entry (CPOE) warrants detailed evaluation. Mixed results have been reported about the benefit of this system. No review of its application in surgical patients has been reported to date. We present the implementation of CPOE in the management of surgical patients within an academic multispecialty practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective and prospective analyses of patient-safety measures were done pre- and post-CPOE institution, respectively. Other metrics evaluated included medication errors, order-implementation times, efficiencies, personnel requirements, and physician time. Sampling of time span for the order placement process was assessed with direct hidden observation of the provider.

RESULTS

A total of 15 (0.22%) medication errors were discovered in 6,815 surgical procedures performed during the 6 months before CPOE use. After implementation, 10 medication errors were found (5,963 surgical procedures [0.16%]) in the initial 6 months and 13 (0.21%) in the second 6 months (6,106 surgical procedures) (p = NS). Mean total time from placement of order to nurse receipt before implementation was 41.2 minutes per order (2.05 minutes finding chart, 0.72 minutes writing order, 38.4 minutes for unit secretary transcription) compared with 27 seconds per order using CPOE (p < 0.01). Four additional informational technology specialists were temporarily required for assistance in implementing CPOE. After CPOE adoption, 11 of 56 (19.6%) ancillary personnel positions were eliminated related to order-entry efficiencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Present CPOE technology can allow major efficiency gains, but refinements will be required for improvements in patient safety.

Prevention of medication errors: teaching and training

1. Poor prescribing is probably the most common cause of preventable medication errors in hospitals, and many of these events involve junior doctors who have recently graduated. Prescribing is a complex skill that depends on a sound knowledge of medicines, an understanding of the principles of clinical pharmacology, the ability to make judgements concerning risks and benefits, and ideally experience. It is not surprising that errors occur. 2. The challenge of being a prescriber is probably greater now than ever before. Medical education has changed radically in the last 20 years, reflecting concerns about an overburdened curriculum and lack of focus on social sciences. In the UK, these changes have resulted in less teaching in clinical pharmacology and practical prescribing as guaranteed features of undergraduate training and assessment. There has been growing concern, not least from students, that medical school training is not sufficient to prepare them for the pressures of becoming prescribers. Similar concerns are being expressed in other countries. While irrefutable evidence that these changes are related to medication errors identified in practice, there is circumstantial evidence that this is so. 3. Systems analysis of errors suggests that knowledge and training are relevant factors in causation and that focused education improves prescribing performance. We believe that there is already sufficient evidence to support a careful review of how students are trained to become prescribers and how these skills are fostered in the postgraduate years. We provide a list of guiding principles on which training might be based.

Assessing the impact of an educational program on decreasing prescribing errors at a university hospital

BACKGROUND

Several complex and costly interventions reduce medication errors. Little exists on the effectiveness of providing education and feedback to institutional clinicians as a means of reducing errors.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact on prescribing errors of a pharmacist-led educational intervention.

DESIGN

Prospective, interrupted time series study.

SETTING

This study was conducted among internal medicine residents at the 320-bed University of Toledo Medical Center.

INTERVENTION

The educational intervention was conducted during a 6-month period beginning in November 2006. The intervention included an initial hour-long lecture followed by biweekly and then monthly discussions that used timely, institution-specific examples of prescribing errors.

MEASUREMENTS

Data were collected at 5 time points: month 0 (preintervention period); months 1, 3, and 6 (intervention period); and month 7 (postintervention period). Errors were identified, transcribed, coded, and entered into a database. The primary outcome was the frequency of prescribing errors during each period. A Bonferroni-adjusted chi-square analysis was conducted with an a priori experiment-wise alpha of 0.05.

RESULTS

A reduction in prescribing errors of 33% following the first intervention month and a mean 26% reduction during the study period were observed (P<0.0025). The frequencies of preintervention and postintervention errors did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

A straightforward educational intervention reduced prescribing errors during the period of active intervention, but this effect was not sustained. Ongoing communication and education about institution-specific medication errors appear warranted.

Is the principle of a stable Heinrich ratio a myth? A multimethod analysis

BACKGROUND

Safety improvements are sometimes based on the premise that introducing measures to combat minor or no-harm incidents proportionately reduces the incidence of major incidents involving harm. This is in line with the principle of the Heinrich ratio, which asserts that there is a relatively fixed ratio between the incidence of no-harm incidents, minor incidents and major incidents. This principle has been advocated as a means of targeting and evaluating new safety initiatives.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Both thought experimentation and analysis of empirical data were used to examine the plausibility of this principle. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out using triangle plots to display the relative frequencies of the occurrence of safety incidents classified as minor, moderate or severe.

FINDINGS

Thought experiments indicated that the principle of a fixed Heinrich ratio has a dubious logical foundation. Analysis of emergency department attendance and studies of medication errors demonstrated marked variation in the relative ratios of different outcomes. Triangle plots of UK road traffic accident data revealed a hitherto unrecognized systematic pattern of change that contradicts the principle of the Heinrich ratio.

INTERPRETATION

This study of the principle of a fixed Heinrich ratio invalidates it: introducing measures to reduce the incidence of minor incidents will not inevitably reduce the incidence of major incidents pro rata. Any safety policies based on the assumption that the Heinrich ratio is true need to be rethought.

What is the scale of prescribing errors committed by junior doctors? A systematic review

AIMS

Prescribing errors are an important cause of patient safety incidents, generally considered to be made more frequently by junior doctors, but prevalence and causality are unclear. In order to inform the design of an educational intervention, a systematic review of the literature on prescribing errors made by junior doctors was undertaken.

METHODS

Searches were undertaken using the following databases: MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science and Social Sciences Citation Index; CINAHL; Health Management Information Consortium; PsychINFO; ISI Proceedings; The Proceedings of the British Pharmacological Society; Cochrane Library; National Research Register; Current Controlled Trials; and Index to Theses. Studies were selected if they reported prescribing errors committed by junior doctors in primary or secondary care, were in English, published since 1990 and undertaken in Western Europe, North America or Australasia.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The range of error rates was 2-514 per 1000 items prescribed and 4.2-82% of patients or charts reviewed. Considerable variation was seen in design, methods, error definitions and error rates reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The review reveals a widespread problem that does not appear to be associated with different training models, healthcare systems or infrastructure. There was a range of designs, methods, error definitions and error rates, making meaningful conclusions difficult. No definitive study of prescribing errors has yet been conducted, and is urgently needed to provide reliable baseline data for interventions aimed at reducing errors. It is vital that future research is well constructed and generalizable using standard definitions and methods.

Medication errors in older people with mental health problems: a review

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise published data on medication errors in older people with mental health problems.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that investigated medication errors in older people with mental health problems. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PHARMLINE, COCHRANE COLLABORATION and PsycINFO were searched electronically. Any studies identified were scrutinized for further references. The title, abstract or full text was systematically reviewed for relevance.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from eight studies. In total, information about 728 errors (459 administration, 248 prescribing, 7 dispensing, 12 transcribing, 2 unclassified) was available. The dataset related almost exclusively to inpatients, frequently involved non-psychotropics, and the majority of the errors were not serious.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to methodology issues it was impossible to calculate overall error rates. Future research should concentrate on serious errors within community settings, and clarify potential risk factors.

Medication errors caused by junior doctors

Association with depression and burn-out remains uncertain

Antibiotic and O2 omissions and errors in hospitalized patients

The aim was to investigate medication errors regarding antibiotic and oxygen therapy in 2 different hospital types, respiratory versus general, in Greece. Oxygen and antibiotic errors were 27.4% and 16.9%, respectively. Errors by physicians and nurses were nearly the same type and rates. Oxygen errors were significantly higher in the General Hospital. The study confirmed that medication processes should be reevaluated to prevent medication errors, and educational programs and protocols should be used.

Evaluation of outpatient computerized physician medication order entry systems: a systematic review

This paper provides a systematic literature review of CPOE evaluation studies in the outpatient setting on: safety; cost and efficiency; adherence to guideline; alerts; time; and satisfaction, usage, and usability. Thirty articles with original data (randomized clinical trial, non-randomized clinical trial, or observational study designs) met the inclusion criteria. Only four studies assessed the effect of CPOE on safety. The effect was not significant on the number of adverse drug events. Only one study showed a significant reduction of the number of medication errors. Three studies showed significant reductions in medication costs; five other studies could not support this. Most studies on adherence to guidelines showed a significant positive effect. The relatively small number of evaluation studies published to date do not provide adequate evidence that CPOE systems enhance safety and reduce cost in the outpatient settings. There is however evidence for (a) increasing adherence to guidelines, (b) increasing total prescribing time, and (c) high frequency of ignored alerts.

Providing feedback to hospital doctors about prescribing errors; a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of obtaining data on prescribing error rates in routine practice, and presenting feedback on such errors to medical staff.

SETTING

One clinical directorate of a London teaching trust.

METHODS

Ward pharmacists recorded all prescribing errors identified in newly written medication orders on one day each fortnight between February and May 2005. We examined prescribing errors reported on the trust's medication incident database for the same period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prescribing errors identified and recorded by ward pharmacists, prescribing errors reported as incident reports; prescribing error rates per clinical specialty; lead consultants' views on receiving feedback on errors for their specialty.

RESULTS

During eight data collection days, 4,995 new medication orders were examined. Of these, 462 (9.2%; 95% confidence interval 8.5 -10.1%) contained at least one prescribing error. There were 474 errors in total. Pharmacists indicated that they would have reported 19 (4%) of the prescribing errors as medication incidents. Eight prescribing errors were reported for the entire four-month study period on non-data collection days. Feedback was presented to lead clinicians of 10 clinical specialties. This included graphical summaries showing how the specialty compared with others, and a list of errors identified. This information was well-received by clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Prescribing errors identified by ward pharmacists can be systematically fed back at the level of the clinical specialty; this is acceptable to the consultants involved. Incident report data is subject to gross under-reporting. Routinely providing feedback for each consultant team or for individual prescribers will require more focussed data collection.

Errors associated with applying decision support by suggesting default doses for aminoglycosides

BACKGROUND

Medication errors, and the resultant adverse drug events (ADEs), are one of the main preventable causes of morbidity and mortality. Computerised physician order entry (CPOE) is reported to reduce the frequency of these errors. However, CPOE systems themselves may be associated with errors. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a CPOE system that displays an initial default dose for gentamycin and tobramycin administration on the frequency of medication errors and potential ADEs in patients with renal insufficiency.

METHODS

Gentamycin and tobramycin prescriptions from the CPOE records of a Dutch tertiary adult intensive care unit were retrospectively compared with doses recommended by a locally developed guideline. The default dose for gentamycin and tobramycin in the CPOE system is 240 mg/day. A dose prescribing error was defined as an administered dose that exceeded the recommended dose by >10%.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninty two prescriptions, relating to 253 patients (of whom 184 had renal insufficiency), were analysed. There was a high frequency (58%, 227 of 392) of prescriptions that used the CPOE system's default dose of 240 mg/day. The dose was wrong in 73% (165) of these orders. Default orders for patients with renal insufficiency amounted to 52% (132 of 259). A total of 86% (113 of 132) of these resulted in potential ADEs compared with 53% (66 of 124) for the rest of orders (p < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

A markedly high frequency of prescriptions followed the default dose value and, in patients with renal insufficiency, there was a high frequency of doses exceeding the guideline recommendation (+10%), amounting to potential ADEs.

CONCLUSION

Initial CPOE dose values for prescribing gentamycin and tobramycin, which are based on a fixed default value, form a source of potential ADEs for patients with renal insufficiency.

Medication errors in mental healthcare: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been estimated that medication error harms 1-2% of patients admitted to general hospitals. There has been no previous systematic review of the incidence, cause or type of medication error in mental healthcare services.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for studies that examined the incidence or cause of medication error in one or more stage(s) of the medication-management process in the setting of a community or hospital-based mental healthcare service was undertaken. The results in the context of the design of the study and the denominator used were examined.

RESULTS

All studies examined medication management processes, as opposed to outcomes. The reported rate of error was highest in studies that retrospectively examined drug charts, intermediate in those that relied on reporting by pharmacists to identify error and lowest in those that relied on organisational incident reporting systems. Only a few of the errors identified by the studies caused actual harm, mostly because they were detected and remedial action was taken before the patient received the drug. The focus of the research was on inpatients and prescriptions dispensed by mental health pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

Research about medication error in mental healthcare is limited. In particular, very little is known about the incidence of error in non-hospital settings or about the harm caused by it. Evidence is available from other sources that a substantial number of adverse drug events are caused by psychotropic drugs. Some of these are preventable and might probably, therefore, be due to medication error. On the basis of this and features of the organisation of mental healthcare that might predispose to medication error, priorities for future research are suggested.