From a reactive to a proactive safety approach. Analysis of medication errors in chemotherapy using general failure types

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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 The TAWS increased detection of (1) errors in the amount of drug withdrawn from vials (manual vs TAWS, 0.4% [5/1,350] vs 1.2% [18/1565]; P 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

Conclusion

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

Chemotherapy medication errors

Although chemotherapy is a well established treatment modality, chemotherapy errors represent a potentially serious risk of patient harm. We reviewed published research from 1980 to 2017 to understand the extent and nature of medication errors in cancer chemotherapy, and to identify effective interventions to help prevent mistakes. Chemotherapy errors occur at a rate of about one to four per 1000 orders, affect at least 1-3% of adult and paediatric oncology patients, and occur at all stages of the medication use process. Oral chemotherapy use is a particular area of growing risk. Our knowledge of chemotherapy errors is drawn primarily from single-institution studies at university hospitals and referral centres, with a particular focus on prescription orders and pharmacy practices. Although the heterogeneity of research methods and measures used in these studies limits our understanding of this issue, the rate of chemotherapy error-related injuries is generally lower than those seen in comparable studies of general medical patients. Although many interventions show promise in reducing chemotherapy errors, most have little empirical support. Additional research is needed to understand and to mitigate the risk of chemotherapy medication errors.

Exploring healthcare professionals' perceptions of medication errors in an adult oncology department in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study

Objective

Adverse events which result from medication errors are considered to be one of the most frequently encountered patient safety issues in clinical settings. We undertook a qualitative investigation to identify and explore factors relating to medication error in an adult oncology department in Saudi Arabia from the perspective of healthcare professionals.

Methods

This was a qualitative study conducted in an adult oncology department in Saudi Arabia. After obtaining required ethical approvals and written consents from the participants, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were carried out for data collection. A stratified purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit medical doctors, pharmacists, and nurses. NVivo Pro version 11 was used for data analyses. Inductive thematic analysis was adopted in the primary coding of data while secondary coding of data was carried out deductively applying the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) framework.

Result

The total number of participants were 38. Majority of the participants were nurses (n = 24), females (n = 30), and not of Saudi nationality (n = 31) with an average age of 36 years old. Causes of medication errors were categorized into 6 themes. These causes were related teamwork across units, staffing, handover of medication related information, accepted behavioural norms, frequency of events reported, and non-punitive response to error.

Conclusion

There were numerous causes for medication errors in the adult oncology department. This means substantive improvement in medication safety is likely to require multiple, inter-relating, complex interventions. More research should be conducted to examine context-specific interventions that may have the potential to improve medication safety in this and similar departments.

Performance evaluation of the compounding robot, APOTECAchemo, for injectable anticancer drugs in a Japanese hospital

BACKGROUND

The accuracy, safety and feasibility of, the compounding robot APOTECAchemo were evaluated in the clinical practice of Japan.

METHODS

Accuracy and precision of robotic preparations by APOTECAchemo was evaluated in 20 preparations of fluorouracil (FU) and cyclophosphamide (CPA) infusions by four pharmacists. Environmental and product contaminations with FU and CPA were evaluated by wipe testing. Robotic performance was compared with manual preparation in a biological safety cabinet. The number of robotic products, total compounding time and total pre-reconstitution time of lyophilized drugs between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015 were investigated.

RESULTS

Robotic preparation resulted more accurate and precise (mean absolute dose error and coefficient of variation were 0.83 and 1.04% for FU and 0.52 and 0.59% for CPA) than those of manual preparation (respective values were 1.20 and 1.46% for FU and 1.70 and 2.20% for CPA). Drug residue was not detected from any of the prepared infusion bags with the robotic preparation, whereas FU was detected in two of four analyzed infusion bags with manual preparation. Average total time to make single anticancer drug preparation (compounding plus reconstitution of lyophilized drugs) was 6.11 min in the second half of 2015. During the study period, the highest percentage of production covered by APOTECAchemo was 70.4% of the total inpatient pharmacy activity.

CONCLUSION

Robotic preparation using APOTECAchemo should give substantial advantages in drug compounding for accuracy and safety and was able to be successfully worked in Mie university hospital.

From a reactive to a proactive safety approach. Analysis of medication errors in chemotherapy using general failure types

A better understanding of why medication errors (MEs) occur will mean that we can work proactively to minimise them. This study developed a proactive tool to identify general failure types (GFTs) in the process of managing cytotoxic drugs in healthcare. The tool is based on Reason's Tripod Delta tool. The GFTs and active failures were identified in 60 cases of MEs reported to the Swedish national authorities. The most frequently encountered GFTs were defences, procedures, organisation and design. Working conditions were often the common denominator underlying the MEs. Among the active failures identified, a majority were classified as slips, one‐third as mistakes, and for a few no active failure or error could be determined. It was found that the tool facilitated the qualitative understanding of how the organisational weaknesses and local characteristics influence the risks. It is recommended that the tool be used regularly. We propose further development of the GFT tool. We also propose a tool to be further developed into a proactive self‐evaluation tool that would work as a complement to already incident reporting and event and risk analyses.