Medicines safety in anaesthetic practice

Medication stewardship in the operating theatre in Malaysia: A quality improvement project

Background and Aims

A quality improvement project ('Safe Anaesthesia for ALL-SEAL') was implemented to reduce preventable medication errors and drug wastage in the operating theatre (OT) of a tertiary hospital. The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to prevent the incidence of medication errors, and the secondary objective was to reduce the wastage of unused drugs.

Methods

A pre-intervention questionnaire and an audit survey were performed, and multidirectional interventions were designed post-survey. A post-intervention survey was conducted to evaluate effectiveness. The incidence of medication errors, including near misses, was assessed for root causes. Unused drugs drawn or diluted in syringes were recorded daily in each OT. The weekly drug orders and mid-week reordering frequency were also monitored. The data were reported as simple means and percentages.

Results

Ninety-eight anaesthesia care providers participated in the survey (72.4% doctors and 27.6% anaesthetic nurses). Pre-intervention, 76.1% of respondents had experienced medication errors during their practice. Common errors included misidentification of ampoules or vials (65.2%), miscalculation of dosages (65.2%), improper syringe labelling (56.5%), accidental drug omission (54.3%) and wrong prescriptions (39.1%). The main sources of errors were fatigue/overwork (80.4%) and a hectic OT environment (71.7%). Post-intervention, no incidents of medication errors were reported. In addition, there was a significant reduction in drug wastage.

Conclusions

The SEAL project positively prevented medication errors and reduced drug wastage, which should be further validated in other clinical settings.

Medication errors in veterinary anesthesia: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of medication errors (MEs) in veterinary medicine, with a focus on the perianesthetic period; to compare MEs in veterinary medicine with human anesthesia practice, and to describe factors contributing to the risk of MEs and strategies for error reduction.

DATABASES USED

PubMed and CAB abstracts; search terms: [("patient safety" or "medication error∗") AND veterin∗].

CONCLUSIONS

Human anesthesia is recognized as having a relatively high risk of MEs. In veterinary medicine, MEs were among the most commonly reported medical error. Predisposing factors for MEs in human and veterinary anesthesia include general (e.g. distraction, fatigue, workload, supervision) and specific factors (e.g. requirement for dose calculations when dosing for body mass, using several medications within a short time period and preparing syringes ahead of time). Data on MEs are most commonly collected in self-reporting systems, which very likely underestimate the true incidence, a problem acknowledged in human medicine. Case reports have described a variety of MEs in the perianesthetic period, including prescription, preparation and administration errors. Dogs and cats were the most frequently reported species, with MEs in cats more commonly associated with harmful outcomes compared with dogs. In addition to education and raising awareness, other strategies described for reducing the risk of MEs include behavioral, communication, identification, organizational, engineering and cognitive aids.

A retrospective analysis of peri-operative medication errors from a low-middle income country

Identifying medication errors is one method of improving patient safety. Peri operative anesthetic management of patient includes polypharmacy and the steps followed prior to drug administration. Our objective was to identify, extract and analyze the medication errors (MEs) reported in our critical incident reporting system (CIRS) database over the last 15 years (2004-2018) and to review measures taken for improvement based on the reported errors. CIRS reported from 2004 to 2018 were identified, extracted, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and presented as frequencies and percentages. MEs were identified and entered on a data extraction form which included reporting year, patients age, surgical specialty, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) status, time of incident, phase and type of anesthesia and drug handling, type of error, class of medicine, level of harm, severity of adverse drug event (ADE) and steps taken for improvement. Total MEs reported were 311, medication errors were reported, 163 (52%) errors occurred in ASA II and 90 (29%) ASA III patient, and 133 (43%) during induction. During administration phase 60% MEs occurred and 65% were due to human error. ADEs were found in 86 (28%) reports, 58 of which were significant, 23 serious and five life-threatening errors. The majority of errors involved neuromuscular blockers (32%) and opioids (13%). Sharing of CI and a lesson to be learnt e-mail, colour coded labels, change in medication trolley lay out, decrease in floor stock and high alert labels were the low-cost steps taken to reduce incidents. Medication errors were more frequent during administration. ADEs were occurred in 28% MEs.