Caregivers' perception of drug administration safety for pediatric oncology patients

Medication errors (MEs) are reported to be between 1.5% and 90% depending on many factors, such as type of the institution where data were collected and the method to identify the errors. More significantly, the risk for errors with potential for harm is 3 times higher for children, especially those receiving chemotherapy. Few studies have been published on averting such errors with children and none on how caregivers perceive their role in preventing such errors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pediatric oncology patient's caregivers' perception of drug administration safety and their willingness to be involved in averting such errors. A cross-sectional design was used to study a nonrandomized sample of 100 caregivers of pediatric oncology patients. Ninety-six of the caregivers surveyed were well informed about the medications their children receive and were ready to participate in error prevention strategies. However, an underestimation of potential errors uncovered a high level of "trust" for the staff. Caregivers echoed their apprehension for being responsible for potential errors. Caregivers are a valuable resource to intercept medication errors. However, caregivers may be hesitant to actively communicate their fears with health professionals. Interventions that aim at encouraging caregivers to engage in the safety of their children are recommended.

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.

Predictors of health care professionals' attitudes towards involvement in safety-relevant behaviours

BACKGROUND

Patients can make valuable contributions towards promoting the safety of their health care. Health care professionals (HCPs) could play an important role in encouraging patient involvement in safety-relevant behaviours. However, to date factors that determine HCPs' attitudes towards patient participation in this area remain largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate predictors of HCPs' attitudes towards patient involvement in safety-relevant behaviours.

DESIGN

A 22-item cross-sectional fractional factorial survey that assessed HCPs' attitudes towards patient involvement in relation to two error scenarios relating to hand hygiene and medication safety.

SETTING

Four hospitals in London

PARTICIPANTS

  Two hundred sixteen HCPs (116 doctors; 100 nurses) aged between 21 and 60 years (mean: 32): 129 female.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Approval of patient's behaviour, HCP response to the patient, anticipated effects on the patient-HCP relationship, support for being asked as a HCP, affective rating response to the vignettes.

RESULTS

HCPs elicited more favourable attitudes towards patients intervening about a medication error than about hand sanitation. Across vignettes and error scenarios, the strongest predictors of attitudes were how the patient intervened and how the HCP responded to the patient's behaviour. With regard to HCP characteristics, doctors viewed patients intervening less favourably than nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs perceive patients intervening about a potential error less favourably if the patient's behaviour is confrontational in nature or if the HCP responds to the patient intervening in a discouraging manner. In particular, if a HCP responds negatively to the patient (irrespective of whether an error actually occurred), this is perceived as having negative effects on the HCP-patient relationship.

Analysis of clinical pharmacist interventions in a tertiary teaching hospital in Brazil

Objective:

To analyze the clinical pharmacist interventions performed during the review of prescription orders of the Adult Intensive Care, Cardiologic Intensive Care, and Clinical Cardiology Units of a large tertiary teaching hospital in Brazil.

Methods:

The analysis took place daily with the following parameters: dose, rate of administration, presentation and/or dosage form, presence of inappropriate/unnecessary drugs, necessity of additional medication, more proper alternative therapies, presence of relevant drug interactions, inconsistencies in prescription orders, physical-chemical incompatibilities/solution stability. From this evaluation, the drug therapy problems were classified, as well as the resulting clinical interventions.

Results:

During the study, a total of 6,438 drug orders were assessed and 933 interventions were performed. The most prevalent drug therapy problems involved ranitidine (28.44%), enoxaparin (13.76%), and meropenem (8.26%). The acceptability of the interventions was 76.32%. The most common problem found was related to dose, representing 46.73% of the total.

Conclusion:

Our study showed that up to 14.6% of the prescriptions reviewed had some drug therapy problem and the pharmacist interventions have promoted positive changes in seven to ten of these prescriptions.

Prevalence and causes of prescribing errors: the PRescribing Outcomes for Trainee Doctors Engaged in Clinical Training (PROTECT) study

OBJECTIVES

Study objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing.

METHOD

A three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors' self-efficacy were established.

RESULTS

4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p<0.001), surgical (p = <0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather thanmedical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p<0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p<0.001) and the months December and June (p<0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these.

Medication errors in hospitalised children

AIM

This study aims to explore the characteristics of reported medication errors occurring among children in an Australian children's hospital, and to examine the types, causes and contributing factors of medication errors.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken of medication errors reported to an online incident facility at an Australian children's hospital over a 4-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 2753 medication errors were reported over the 4-year period, with an overall medication error rate of 0.31% per combined admission and presentation, or 6.58 medication errors per 1000 bed days. The two most common severity outcomes were: the medication error occurred before it reached the child (n = 749, 27.2%); and the medication error reached the child who required monitoring to confirm that it resulted in no harm (n = 1519, 55.2%). Common types of medication errors included overdose (n = 579, 21.0%) and dose omission (n = 341, 12.4%). The most common cause relating to communication involved misreading or not reading medication orders (n = 804, 29.2%). Key contributing factors involved communication relating to children's transfer across different clinical settings (n = 929, 33.7%) and the lack of following policies and procedures (n = 617, 22.4%). More than half of the reports (72.5%) were made by nurses.

CONCLUSION

Future research should focus on implementing and evaluating strategies aimed at reducing medication errors relating to analgesics, anti-infectives, cardiovascular agents, fluids and electrolytes and anticlotting agents, as they are consistently represented in the types of medication errors that occur. Greater attention needs to be placed on supporting health professionals in managing these medications.

Evaluation of a medication order writing standards policy in a regional health authority

BACKGROUND

The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) implemented a medication order writing standards (MOWS) policy (including banned abbreviations) to improve patient safety. Widespread educational campaigns and direct prescriber feedback were implemented.

METHODS

We audited orders within the WRHA from 2005 to 2009 and surveyed all WRHA staff in 2011 about the policy and suggestions for improving education and compliance.

RESULTS

Overall, orders containing banned abbreviations, acronyms or symbols numbered 2261/8565 (26.4%) preimplementation. After WRHA-wide didactic education, the proportion declined to 1358/5461 (24.9%) (p = 0.043) and then, with targeted prescriber feedback, to 1186/6198 (19.1%) (p < 0.0001). A survey of 723 employees showed frequent violations of the MOWS, despite widespread knowledge of the policy. Respondents supported ongoing efforts to enforce the policy within the WRHA. Nonprescribers were significantly more likely than prescribers to agree with statements regarding enhancing compliance by defining prescriber/transcriber responsibilities and placing sanctions on noncompliant prescribers.

DISCUSSION

Education, raising general awareness and targeted feedback to prescribers alone are insufficient to ensure compliance with MOWS policies. WRHA staff supported ongoing communication, improved tools such as compliant preprinted orders and reporting and feedback about medication incidents. A surprising number of respondents supported placing sanctions on noncompliant prescribers.

CONCLUSION

Serial audits and targeted interventions such as direct prescriber feedback improve prescription quality in inpatient hospital settings. Education plus direct prescriber feedback had a greater impact than education alone on improving compliance with a MOWS policy. Future efforts at the WRHA to improve compliance will require an expanded focus on incentives, resources and development of action plans that involve all affected staff, not just prescribers. Plans include continued advertising, MOWS summaries in all charts, all-staff education, reminders and exploration of sustainable interventions for targeted feedback for prescribers.

Association between physician specialty and risk of prescribing inappropriate pill splitting

BACKGROUND

Prescription errors that occur due to the process of pill splitting are a common medication problem; however, available prescription information involving inappropriate pill splitting and its associated factors is lacking.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of ambulatory prescriptions involving extended-release or enteric-coated formulations in a Taiwan medical center during a 5-month period in 2010. For this study, those pill splitting prescriptions involving special oral formulations were defined as inappropriate prescriptions. Information obtained included patient demographics, prescriber specialty and prescription details, which were assessed to identify factors associated with inappropriate pill splitting.

RESULTS

There were 1,252 inappropriate prescriptions identified in this cohort study, representing a prescription frequency for inappropriate pill splitting of 1.0% among 124,300 prescriptions with special oral formulations. Among 35 drugs with special oral formulations in our study, 20 different drugs (57.1%, 20/35) had ever been prescribed to split. Anti-diabetic agents, cardiovascular agents and central nervous system agents were the most common drug classes involved in inappropriate splitting. The rate of inappropriate pill splitting was higher in older (over 65 years of age) patients (1.1%, 832/75,387). Eighty-seven percent (1089/1252) of inappropriate prescriptions were prescribed by internists. The rate of inappropriate pill splitting was highest from endocrinologists (3.4%, 429/12,477), nephrologists (1.3%, 81/6,028) and cardiologists (1.3%, 297/23,531). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the strongest factor associated with individual specific drug of inappropriate splitting was particular physician specialties.

CONCLUSION

This study provides important insights into the inappropriate prescription of special oral formulation related to pill splitting, and helps to aggregate information that can assist medical professionals in creating processes for reducing inappropriate pill splitting in the future.

Risk of medication safety incidents with antibiotic use measured by defined daily doses

BACKGROUND

Medication incidents (MIs) account for 11.3 % of all reported patient-safety incidents in England and Wales. Approximately one-third of inpatients are prescribed an antibiotic at some point during their hospital stay. The WHO has identified incident reporting as one solution to reduce the recurrence of adverse incidents.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the number and nature of reported antibiotic-associated MIs occurring in inpatients and to use defined daily doses (DDDs) to calculate the incident rate for the antibiotics most commonly associated with MIs at each hospital.

SETTING

Two UK acute NHS teaching hospitals.

METHODS

Retrospective quantitative analysis was performed on antibiotic-associated MIs reported to the risk management system over a 2-year period. Quality-assurance measures were undertaken before analysis. The study was approved by the clinical audit departments at both hospitals. Drug consumption data from each hospital were used to calculate the DDD for each antibiotic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number of antibiotic-related MIs reported and the incident rate for the 10 antibiotics most commonly associated with MIs at each hospital.

RESULTS

Healthcare staff submitted 6,756 reports, of which 885 (13.1 %) included antibiotics. This resulted in a total of 959 MIs. Most MIs occurred during prescribing (42.4 %, n = 407) and administration (40.0 %, n = 384) stages. Most common types of MIs were omission/delay (26.3 %, n = 252), and dose/frequency (17.9 %, n = 172). Penicillins (34.5 %, n = 331) and aminoglycosides (16.6 %, n = 159) were the most frequently reported groups with co-amoxiclav (16.8 %, n = 161) and gentamicin (14.1 %, n = 135) the most frequently reported drugs. Using DDDs to assess the incident rate showed that cefotaxime (105.4/10,000 DDDs), gentamicin (25.7/10,000 DDDs) and vancomycin (23.7/10,000 DDDs) had the highest rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights that detailed analysis of data from reports is essential in understanding MIs and developing strategies to prevent their recurrence. Using DDDs in the analysis of MIs allowed determination of an incident rate providing more useful information than the absolute numbers alone. It also highlighted the disproportionate risk associated with less commonly prescribed antibiotics not identified using MI reporting rates alone.

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.

Clinical pharmacy services in a London hospital, have they changed?

BACKGROUND

The development of clinical pharmacy, has created a need for pharmacists to demonstrate the service they provide to hospital boards.

OBJECTIVES

To describe and compare the type and frequency of clinical pharmacy contributions to individual patients admitted to a large teaching hospital within a 1 week study period over four consecutive years 2009-2012.

METHOD

This study was a prospective 1 week study over 4 years (2009-2012). Pharmacists used data collection sheets to record the primary reason and outcome of interventions made.

RESULTS

The most frequent reasons for pharmacists intervening in patient care have been due to efficacy of medication and for safety to prevent an adverse drug reaction. The percentage of accepted interventions by the medical team was similar ranging from 85 to 92 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists consistently carried out interventions to patient care over a 4 year period and provide the Trust with a service that focuses on ensuring safety and efficacy of the medications administered. Impact of findings on practice Daily clinical pharmacy services in a UK teaching hospital allow pharmacists to contribute to protecting patients from the adverse effects of medications. Pharmacists most frequently intervene to patient care for the reasons of medication efficacy and safety and to prevent adverse drug reactions.

Exploring health professionals' experiences of medication errors in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature originating from the Middle East on medication errors.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of healthcare professionals around medication errors and medication error reporting. Setting Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

Questionnaire survey of those attending medication error continuing education sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Experiences of medication errors in terms of number, type and severity in the preceding 12 months; barriers to reporting errors to health authorities; potential strategies to improve error reporting.

RESULTS

Sixty-one (61/106, 57.5 %) questionnaires were completed. Thirty-five respondents (57.3 %) reported observing 51 errors during the preceding 12 months. Thirty-five errors (68.6 %) were described: wrong medication prescribed, dispensed or administered (11, 31.4 %); wrong dose prescribed (9, 25.7 %); inappropriate prescribing (issues of drug selection, monitoring) (9, 25.7 %); inappropriate route of administration (2), prescription duplication (2) and equipment failure (2). Patient outcomes resulting from these errors were described by the respondents as 'caused patient harm' in 14 instances. Three key barriers to reporting were: lack of awareness of the reporting policy; workload and time constraints associated with reporting; and unavailability of the reporting form.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate a potential need to review medication error reporting systems in Saudi Arabia to heighten health professional awareness and improve the reporting culture.

Identifying errors in handwritten outpatient prescriptions in oman

To evaluate and analyze the handwritten outpatient prescriptions and associated error of omissions from four different hospitals in Oman. The study designed was an observational, retrospective and analysis of prescriptions was carried out by table and chart method. A total of 900 prescriptions were collected between April 2009 to July 2010. The type of error of omissions considered in this analysis includes all three important parts of prescriptions, i.e. superscription, inscription, and subscription. The most common type of superscription error of omission was found to be age (72.44%) and gender (32.66%). More than 46% of prescriptions were incomplete on direction for use, more than 22% of prescriptions were not having the information on dose, and more than 23% of prescriptions omitted the dosage forms of prescribed drugs. The date of dispensing of medications was omitted in all the prescriptions and more than 44% of prescriptions were missing the signature of dispenser. It was also found that more than 4% of prescriptions omitted the prescriber's signature and more than 18% of prescriptions omitted the date of prescription. We conclude from this study that the handwritten prescriptions were associated with significant frequency of minor and major prescription error of omissions.

Feedback on prescribing errors to junior doctors: exploring views, problems and preferred methods

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors are common in hospital inpatients. However, the literature suggests that doctors are often unaware of their errors as they are not always informed of them. It has been suggested that providing more feedback to prescribers may reduce subsequent error rates. Only few studies have investigated the views of prescribers towards receiving such feedback, or the views of hospital pharmacists as potential feedback providers.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to explore the views of junior doctors and hospital pharmacists regarding feedback on individual doctors' prescribing errors. Objectives were to determine how feedback was currently provided and any associated problems, to explore views on other approaches to feedback, and to make recommendations for designing suitable feedback systems.

SETTING

A large London NHS hospital trust.

METHODS

To explore views on current and possible feedback mechanisms, self-administered questionnaires were given to all junior doctors and pharmacists, combining both 5-point Likert scale statements and open-ended questions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Agreement scores for statements regarding perceived prescribing error rates, opinions on feedback, barriers to feedback, and preferences for future practice.

RESULTS

Response rates were 49% (37/75) for junior doctors and 57% (57/100) for pharmacists. In general, doctors did not feel threatened by feedback on their prescribing errors. They felt that feedback currently provided was constructive but often irregular and insufficient. Most pharmacists provided feedback in various ways; however some did not or were inconsistent. They were willing to provide more feedback, but did not feel it was always effective or feasible due to barriers such as communication problems and time constraints. Both professional groups preferred individual feedback with additional regular generic feedback on common or serious errors.

CONCLUSION

Feedback on prescribing errors was valued and acceptable to both professional groups. From the results, several suggested methods of providing feedback on prescribing errors emerged. Addressing barriers such as the identification of individual prescribers would facilitate feedback in practice. Research investigating whether or not feedback reduces the subsequent error rate is now needed.

Effectiveness of an educational intervention on prescription writing skill of preclerkship medical students in a problem-based learning curriculum

Medical school training for students in pharmacotherapy is suboptimal and junior doctors are not confident to prescribe drugs. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an optional educational intervention on prescribing skill of pre-clerkship medical students in a problem-based learning (PBL) program. Performance was assessed in seven end-unit objective structured practical examinations (OSPE). Physician-related prescription components (PRCs) and drug-related prescription components (DRCs) were assessed. The performance of students who attended the intervention sessions (attendees) and non-attendees was compared. Approximately half of the students attended the sessions. PRCs were written appropriately by most of the students. DRCs were written less competently by both attendees and non-attendees, specifically the dosage form, quantity to be dispensed and directions. Performance on individual DRCs was significantly better for attendees compared to non-attendees. The mean total score for all prescription components of attendees was significantly greater than that of non-attendees. The percentage of high achievers was significantly greater for attendees. A positive correlation was found between student attendance and the total score. An optional educational intervention during the preclerkship phase is an important determinant of prescribing performance of medical students.

Prevalence and Nature of Medication Administration Errors in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Direct Observational Evidence

OBJECTIVE:

To systematically review empirical evidence on the prevalence and nature of medication administration errors (MAEs) in health care settings.

DATA SOURCES:

Ten electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health Management Information Consortium) were searched (1985-May 2012).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

English-language publications reporting MAE data using the direct observation method were included, providing an error rate could be determined. Reference lists of all included articles were screened for additional studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

In all, 91 unique studies were included. The median error rate (interquartile range) was 19.6% (8.6–28.3%) of total opportunities for error including wrong-time errors and 8.0% (5.1–10.9%) without timing errors, when each dose could be considered only correct or incorrect. The median rate of error when more than 1 error could be counted per dose was 25.6% (20.8–41.7%) and 20.7% (9.7–30.3%), excluding wrong-time errors. A higher median MAE rate was observed for the intravenous route (53.3% excluding timing errors (IQR 26.6–57.9%)) compared to when all administration routes were studied (20.1%; 9.0–24.6%), where each dose could accumulate more than one error. Studies consistently reported wrong time, omission, and wrong dosage among the 3 most common MAE subtypes. Common medication groups associated with MAEs were those affecting nutrition and blood, gastrointestinal system, cardiovascular system, central nervous system, and antiinfectives. Medication administration error rates varied greatly as a product of differing medication error definitions, data collection methods, and settings of included studies. Although MAEs remained a common occurrence in health care settings throughout the time covered by this review, potential targets for intervention to minimize MAEs were identified.

CONCLUSIONS:

Future research should attend to the wide methodological inconsistencies between studies to gain a greater measure of comparability to help guide any forthcoming interventions.

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.

Concept-based learning of personalized prescribing

The variability of drug response in different patients can be caused by various factors including age, change in renal function, co-medication and genotype. Traditionally, these personal variables are considered by clinicians prior to issuing a prescription. This paper provides an overview of a process to individualize prescribing for a patient with an emphasis on how to train (learning) clinicians in skillful rational prescribing. For this purpose the 6STEP methodology, a concept-based learning strategy to achieve a structured therapeutic plan, has been introduced. In contrast to older educational approaches which focused primarily on the drugs or the process of prescribing, the 6STEP is a patient-centred method resulting in individualized therapy. The six interlinked steps provide the (training) prescriber with a structured framework that facilitates a rationalized therapeutic decision by focusing on the individual patient parameters that influence drug response. Educational tools for rational prescribing involve understanding of basic and clinical pharmacological principles, practicing to write 6STEP therapeutic plans, learning from feedback sessions on these plans and actively obtaining up to date information on drugs and therapeutic standards from online resources.

A systematic review of educational interventions to change behaviour of prescribers in hospital settings, with a particular emphasis on new prescribers

AIMS

Prescribing is a complex task and a high risk area of clinical practice. Poor prescribing occurs across staff grades and settings but new prescribers are attributed much of the blame. New prescribers may not be confident or even competent to prescribe and probably have different support and development needs than their more experienced colleagues. Unfortunately, little is known about what interventions are effective in this group. Previous systematic reviews have not distinguished between different grades of staff, have been narrow in scope and are now out of date. Therefore, to inform the design of educational interventions to change prescribing behaviour, particularly that of new prescibers, we conducted a systematic review of existing hospital-based interventions.

METHODS

Embase, Medline, SIGLE, Cinahl and PsychINFO were searched for relevant studies published 1994-2010. Studies describing interventions to change the behaviour of prescribers in hospital settings were included, with an emphasis on new prescibers. The bibliographies of included papers were also searched for relevant studies. Interventions and effectiveness were classified using existing frameworks and the quality of studies was assessed using a validated instrument.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the review. Only 13% of interventions specifically targeted new prescribers. Most interventions (72%) were deemed effective in changing behaviour but no particular type stood out as most effective.

CONCLUSION

Very few studies have tailored educational interventions to meet needs of new prescribers, or distinguished between new and experienced prescribers. Educational development and research will be required to improve this important aspect of early clinical practice.

Cross-sectional study of prescribing errors in patients admitted to nine hospitals across North West England

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence, type and severity of prescribing errors observed between grades of prescriber, ward area, admission or discharge and type of medication prescribed.

DESIGN

Ward-based clinical pharmacists prospectively documented prescribing errors at the point of clinically checking admission or discharge prescriptions. Error categories and severities were assigned at the point of data collection, and verified independently by the study team.

SETTING

Prospective study of nine diverse National Health Service hospitals in North West England, including teaching hospitals, district hospitals and specialist services for paediatrics, women and mental health.

RESULTS

Of 4238 prescriptions evaluated, one or more error was observed in 1857 (43.8%) prescriptions, with a total of 3011 errors observed. Of these, 1264 (41.9%) were minor, 1629 (54.1%) were significant, 109 (3.6%) were serious and 9 (0.30%) were potentially life threatening. The majority of errors considered to be potentially lethal (n=9) were dosing errors (n=8), mostly relating to overdose (n=7). The rate of error was not significantly different between newly qualified doctors compared with junior, middle grade or senior doctors. Multivariable analyses revealed the strongest predictor of error was the number of items on a prescription (risk of error increased 14% for each additional item). We observed a high rate of error from medication omission, particularly among patients admitted acutely into hospital. Electronic prescribing systems could potentially have prevented up to a quarter of (but not all) errors.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to other studies, prescriber experience did not impact on overall error rate (although there were qualitative differences in error category). Given that multiple drug therapies are now the norm for many medical conditions, health systems should introduce and retain safeguards which detect and prevent error, in addition to continuing training and education, and migration to electronic prescribing systems.

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.

The use of a consultant-led ward round checklist to improve paediatric prescribing: an interrupted time series study

A Check and Correct checklist has previously been developed to increase feedback on prescribing quality and enhance physicians' focus on patients' drug charts during ward rounds. Our objective was to assess the impact of introducing such a prescribing checklist on the quality and safety of inpatient prescribing in two paediatric wards in a London teaching hospital. Between 15 March 2011 and 15 May 2011 (pre-intervention) and between 23 May 2011 and 23 July 2011 (post-intervention), we recorded rates of both technical prescription writing errors and clinical prescribing errors twice a week. During the pre-intervention period, the overall technical error rate was 10.8 % (95 % confidence interval 10.3 %-11.2 %); the clinical error rate was 4.7 % (3.4 %-6.6 %). The most common errors were absence of prescriber's contact details and dose omissions. After the implementation of Check and Correct, error rates were 7.3 % (6.9 %-7.8 %) and 5.5 % (3.9 %-7.9 %), respectively. Segmented regression analysis revealed a significant decrease of -5.0 % in the technical error rate (-7.1 to -2.9 %; -37.7 % relative decrease; R (2) = 0.604) following the intervention, independent of changes in overall medical records' documentation quality. Regarding clinical errors, no significant impact of the intervention could be detected.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a Check and Correct checklist led to an improvement in the quality of prescription writing. Although a change in culture may be needed to maximise its potential, we would recommend its more widespread use and evaluation.

Medication reconciliation at hospital admission and discharge: insufficient knowledge, unclear task reallocation and lack of collaboration as major barriers to medication safety

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are a leading cause of patient harm. Many of these errors result from an incomplete overview of medication either at a patient's referral to or at discharge from the hospital. One solution is medication reconciliation, a formal process in which health care professionals partner with patients to ensure an accurate and complete transfer of medication information at interfaces of care. In 2007, the Dutch government compelled hospitals to implement a bundle concerning medication reconciliation at hospital admission and discharge. But to date many hospitals have failed to implement this bundle fully. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the barriers and drivers of the implementation process.

METHODS

We performed face to face, semi-structured interviews with twenty health care professionals and managers from several departments at a 953 bed university hospital in the Netherlands and also from the surrounding community health services. The interviews were analysed using a combined theoretical framework of Grol and Cabana to classify the drivers and barriers identified.

RESULTS

There is lack of awareness and insufficient knowledge of health care professionals about the health care problem and the bundle medication reconciliation. These result in a lack of support for implementing the bundle. In addition clinicians are reluctant to reallocate tasks to nurses or pharmacy technicians. Another major barrier is a lack of communication, understanding and collaboration between hospital and community caregivers. The introduction of more competitive market forces has made matters worse. Major drivers are a good implementation plan, patient awareness, and obligation by the government.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a wide range of barriers and drivers which health care professionals believe influence the implementation of medication reconciliation. This reflects the complexity of implementation. Implementation can be improved if these factors are adequately addressed. The feasibility and effectiveness of these strategies should be tested in controlled trails.

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations

Background

It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, prescribing for hospital inpatients, equipment in theatres, and insertion of peripheral intravenous lines. The aim was to describe the nature, extent and variation in reliability of these four systems in a sample of UK hospitals, and to explore the reasons for poor reliability.

Methods

Seven UK hospital organisations were involved; each system was studied in three of these. The authors took delivery of the systems' intended outputs to be a proxy for the reliability of the system as a whole. For example, for clinical information, 100% reliability was defined as all patients having an agreed list of clinical information available when needed during their appointment. Systems factors were explored using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Common themes across the systems were identified.

Results

Overall reliability was found to be between 81% and 87% for the systems studied, with significant variation between organisations for some systems: clinical information in outpatient clinics ranged from 73% to 96%; prescribing for hospital inpatients 82–88%; equipment availability in theatres 63–88%; and availability of equipment for insertion of peripheral intravenous lines 80–88%. One in five reliability failures were associated with perceived threats to patient safety. Common factors causing poor reliability included lack of feedback, lack of standardisation, and issues such as access to information out of working hours.

Conclusions

Reported reliability was low for the four systems studied, with some common factors behind each. However, this hides significant variation between organisations for some processes, suggesting that some organisations have managed to create more reliable systems. Standardisation of processes would be expected to have significant benefit.

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital

Background

Medication errors can occur at any of the three steps of the medication use process: prescribing, dispensing and administration. We aimed to determine the incidence, type and clinical importance of drug administration errors and to identify risk factors.

Methods

Prospective study based on disguised observation technique in four wards in a teaching hospital in Paris, France (800 beds). A pharmacist accompanied nurses and witnessed the preparation and administration of drugs to all patients during the three drug rounds on each of six days per ward. Main outcomes were number, type and clinical importance of errors and associated risk factors. Drug administration error rate was calculated with and without wrong time errors. Relationship between the occurrence of errors and potential risk factors were investigated using logistic regression models with random effects.

Results

Twenty-eight nurses caring for 108 patients were observed. Among 1501 opportunities for error, 415 administrations (430 errors) with one or more errors were detected (27.6%). There were 312 wrong time errors, ten simultaneously with another type of error, resulting in an error rate without wrong time error of 7.5% (113/1501). The most frequently administered drugs were the cardiovascular drugs (425/1501, 28.3%). The highest risks of error in a drug administration were for dermatological drugs. No potentially life-threatening errors were witnessed and 6% of errors were classified as having a serious or significant impact on patients (mainly omission). In multivariate analysis, the occurrence of errors was associated with drug administration route, drug classification (ATC) and the number of patient under the nurse's care.

Conclusion

Medication administration errors are frequent. The identification of its determinants helps to undertake designed interventions.

Measuring the effectiveness of pharmacology teaching in undergraduate medical students

OBJECTIVE

Information overload and recent curricular changes are viewed as important contributory factors to insufficient pharmacological education of medical students. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of pharmacology teaching in our medical school.

METHODS

The study subjects were 455 second-year medical students, class of 2010, and 26 pharmacology teachers at the National University of Mexico Medical School. To assess pharmacological knowledge, students were required to take 3 multiple-choice exams (70 questions each) as part of their evaluation in the pharmacology course. A 30-item questionnaire was used to explore the students' opinion on teaching. Pharmacology professors evaluated themselves using a similar questionnaire. Students and teachers rated each statement on a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

The groups' exam scores ranged from 54.5% to 90.0% of correct responses, with a mean score of 77.3%. Only 73 (16%) of 455 students obtained an exam score of 90% and higher. Students' evaluations of faculty and professor self-ratings were very high (90% and 96.2%, of the maximal response, respectively). Student and professor ratings were not correlated with exam scores (r = 0.291).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that knowledge on pharmacology is incomplete in a large proportion of second-year medical students and indicates that there is an urgent need to review undergraduate training in pharmacology. The lack of relationship between the subjective ratings of teacher effectiveness and objective exam scores suggests the use of more demanding measures to assess the effectiveness of teaching.

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.

Development of a classification system for drug-related problems in the hospital setting (APS-Doc) and assessment of the inter-rater reliability

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Identifying, preventing and resolving drug-related problems (DRP) is an important issue in the pharmaceutical care process. Because DRPs have been detected in a more systematic way, the need for a classification system to document, classify and evaluate the collected data has become necessary. The objective was to develop a classification system for DRPs within the hospital setting, to evaluate the practicality and to assess the inter-rater reliability.

METHODS

All DRPs defined in PI-Doc and PCNE, which are relevant in the hospital setting, were included. Further relevant DRPs identified in other projects in a hospital setting as well as DRPs from the daily work on the ward were collected, and a short description of each DRP was written. A prospective study was conducted at Klinikum Fulda, Germany, in both a non-surgical and a surgical setting to explore whether the new classification system is suitable to classify DRPs in clinics with different specifications. For assessing the inter-rater reliability, 24 standardized case reports were provided. All participants classified them independently. The inter-rater reliability was analysed using Kappa coefficient.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A classification system for DRPs in the hospital setting (APS-Doc) was established with 10 main categories and 48 subcategories. Practicality was assessed in 250 patients in a non-surgical ward as well as in 100 patients in a surgical ward. The inter-rater agreement was 0·68 (95% CI, 0·66-0·69) for main categories, which comprises substantial agreement. Moderate agreement (κ = 0·58; 95% CI, 0·58-0·59) was demonstrated for the subcategories.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

A new hierarchical classification system for DRPs in the hospital setting has been developed. APS-Doc seems suitable for various parts of the medication process such as medication reconciliation and drug therapy within both non-surgical and surgical wards. Inter-rater reliability was found to be substantial in the main categories and moderate in the subcategories.

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.

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.

Development of a core drug list towards improving prescribing education and reducing errors in the UK

AIM

To develop a core list of 100 commonly prescribed drugs to support prescribing education.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prescribing data from primary care in England (2006 and 2008) and from two London Teaching Hospitals (2007 and 2009) was performed. A survey of prescribing by foundation year 1 (FY1) doctors in 39 NHS Trusts across London was carried out.

RESULTS

A core list of 100 commonly prescribed drugs comprising ≥0.1% prescriptions in primary and/or secondary care was developed in 2006/7. The core list remained stable over 2 years. FY1 doctors prescribed 65% drugs on the list at least monthly. Seventy-six% of FY1 doctors did not regularly prescribe any drugs not on the core list. There was a strong correlation between prescribing frequency (prescriptions for each drug class expressed as percentage of all prescriptions written) and error rate described in the EQUIP study (errors made when prescribing each drug class expressed as a percentage of all errors made), n= 39, r= 0.861, P= 0.000.

CONCLUSIONS

Our core drug list identifies drugs that are commonly used and associated with error and is stable over at least 2 years. This list can now be used to develop learning resources and training programmes to improve prescribing of drugs in regular use. Complementary skills required for prescribing less familiar drugs must be developed in parallel. Ongoing research is required to monitor the effect of new training initiatives on prescribing error and patient safety.

Inpatient prescribing errors and pharmacist intervention at a teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors phenomena are very common within health care practice. These errors could result in adverse events and harm to patients. Pharmacist has an identified role in minimizing and preventing such errors.

OBJECTIVES

To detect the incidence of prescribing errors for hospitalized patient, to evaluate the clinical impact of pharmacist intervention on the detection of these errors, and to propose a program to overcome this problem in a teaching hospital.

METHODS

For one month period starting November until December 2009, the inpatient medication charts and orders were identified and rectified by ward and practicing pharmacists within inpatient pharmacy services in a teaching hospital at King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH) at King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on routine daily activities. Data were collected and evaluated. The causes of this problem were identified.

RESULTS

Approximately 113 (7.1%) prescribing errors were detected during the study period out of 1580 medication orders. Wrong strength and wrong administration frequency of the prescribed drug were the most errors encountered in the study, which were 35%, and 23%, respectively. Other errors such as wrong patient, wrong drug, and wrong dose were also encountered. Lack of knowledge of prescribing skill was the main cause of such errors.

CONCLUSION

Prescribing errors in teaching hospital within inpatient pharmacy services were noticed. The applied method in this project might be implemented as part of pharmacy quality assurance program for ongoing detection and monitoring of such errors. Technology in prescribing process will support the practitioner to reduce the incidence of these errors. Forcing ongoing professional communication and education within the medical team about prescribing errors now appear warranted.

Effect of emergency medicine pharmacists on medication-error reporting in an emergency department

PURPOSE

The effect of an emergency medicine (EM) clinical pharmacist on medication-error reporting in an emergency department (ED) was studied.

METHODS

The medication-error reports for patients seen at a university's ED between September 1, 2005, and February 28, 2009, were retrospectively reviewed. Errors reported before the addition of an EM pharmacist (from September 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006) were compared with those reported after the addition of two EM pharmacists (from September 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009). The severity of errors and the provider who reported the errors were characterized.

RESULTS

A total of 402 medication errors were reported over the two time periods. Pharmacy personnel captured significantly more errors than did other health care personnel (94.5% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001). The addition of two EM pharmacists resulted in 14.8 times as many medication-error reports as were made when no EM pharmacist was in the ED. More errors that actually occurred were captured with two pharmacists providing care (95.7% versus 4.3%, p < 0.001). A majority of the errors documented were ordering errors (79.8%). Of these, 73.7% were captured after the addition of two EM pharmacists. Performance (40.0%) and knowledge (27.9%) deficits were the most common contributing factors to medication errors.

CONCLUSION

During the study period after the addition of two EM pharmacists in the ED, 371 medication-error reports were completed, compared with 31 reports during the study period before the addition of the pharmacists. Pharmacy personnel reported the majority of medication errors during both study periods.

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.

The impact of type of manual medication cart filling method on the frequency of medication administration errors: a prospective before and after study

BACKGROUND

The medication cart can be filled using an automated system or a manual method and when using a manual method the medication can be arranged either by round time or by medication name. For the manual methods, it is hypothesized that the latter method would result in a lower frequency of medication administration errors because nurses are forced to read the medication labels, but evidence for this hypothesis is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of medication administration errors of two different manual medication cart filling methods, namely arranging medication by round time or by medication name.

DESIGN

A prospective, observational study with a before-after design.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS

Eighty-six patients who stayed on an orthopaedic ward in one university medical centre in the Netherlands were included.

METHODS

Disguised observation was used to detect medication administration errors. The medication cart filling method in usual care was to fill the cart with medication arranged by round time. The intervention was the implementation of the second medication cart filling method, where the medication cart was filled by arranging medicines by their names. The primary outcome was the frequency of medication administrations with one or more error(s) after the intervention compared with before the intervention. The secondary outcome was the frequency of subtypes of medication administration errors.

RESULTS

After the intervention 170 of 740 (23.0%) medication administrations with one or more medication administration error(s) were observed compared to 114 of 589 (19.4%) before the intervention (odds ratio 1.24 [95% confidence interval 0.95-1.62]). The distribution of subtypes of medication administration errors before and after the intervention was statistically significantly different (p<0.001). Analysis of subtypes revealed more omissions and wrong time errors after the intervention than before the intervention. Unauthorized medication errors were detected more frequently before the intervention than after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of medication administration errors with the medication cart filling method where the medication is arranged by name was not statistically significantly different compared to the medication cart filling method where the medication is arranged by round time.

Covering more Territory to Fight Resistance: Considering Nurses' Role in Antimicrobial Stewardship

The potential contribution nurses can make to the management of antimicrobials within an in-patient setting could impact on the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and healthcare associated infections (HCAIs). Current initiatives promoting prudent antimicrobial prescribing and management have generally failed to include nurses, which subsequently limits the extent to which these strategies can improve patient outcomes. For antimicrobial stewardship (AS) programmes to be successful, a sustained and seamless level of monitoring and decision making in relation to antimicrobial therapy is needed. As nurses have the most consistent presence as patient carer, they are in the ideal position to provide this level of service. However, for nurses to truly impact on AMR and HCAIs through increasing their profile in AS, barriers and facilitators to adopting this enhanced role must be contextualised in the implementation of any initiative.

Therapeutic misadventure

Therapeutic misadventure can be defined as an injury or an adverse event caused by medical management rather than by an underlying disease. Within the National Health Service there were over 86,000 reported adverse incidents in 2007. In the USA medication errors have been rated as the fourth highest cause of death. Unfortunately one of the greatest contributors to iatrogenic injury is human error. The potential types of misadventure are infinite. Medication errors are a major part of this, being responsible for over 70% of cases that cause serious harm. However, many medication errors caused by slips, lapses, technical errors and mistakes are preventable; intentional violations of safe operating procedures are not. While medication errors were tolerated by society in the past, the readiness to institute criminal proceedings against health-care professionals has increased greatly in the UK over the last decade. The medication process consists of writing prescriptions, dispensing the product, administering it and monitoring its effects. Prescription errors arise owing to incomplete information, lack of appropriate labelling, environmental factors and human blunders. Even with a perfect prescription the right medication must be dispensed and appropriately labelled. Dispensing errors are not uncommon and may be compounded by non-clinical considerations. Administration of a drug by injection is one of the most dangerous aspects of the medication process, especially in inexperienced hands. The final component of medication supply is monitoring the effect of the medication. With short courses of medication such monitoring is easy, but with long-term medication, particularly with potent drugs where the margin between efficacy and toxicity is small, active procedures may be required to ensure toxicity does not ensue. Despite the endeavour of health-care professions to stick to the rule of 'first, do no harm', in reality this is difficult to achieve all of the time. When errors occur the natural thoughts of wanting to blame an individual at the sharp end (active error) should be tempered. Identifying and correcting system (latent) errors will, in the end, provide a safer health-care system.