Drug dispensing errors in a ward stock system

Your clinical pharmacist can save your life, the impact of pharmacist's intervention

Objective

Patient safety and adverse event analysis are of paramount importance in the management of patient medication, given the significant economic burden they place on a country's healthcare system. Medication errors fall into the category of preventable adverse drug therapy events and are therefore of key importance from a patient safety perspective. Our study aims to identify the types of medication errors associated with the medication dispensing process and to determine whether automated individual medication dispensing with pharmacist intervention significantly reduces medication errors, thereby increasing patient safety, compared to traditional, ward base medication dispensing (by a nurse).

Method

A prospective, quantitative, double-blind point prevalence study was conducted in three inpatient internal medicine wards of Komló Hospital in February 2018 and 2020. We analyzed data from comparisons of prescribed and non-prescribed oral medications in 83 and 90 patients per year aged 18 years or older with different diagnoses treated for internal medicine on the same day and in the same ward. In the 2018 cohort, medication was traditionally dispensed by a ward nurse, while in the 2020 cohort, it used automated individual medication dispensing with pharmacist intervention. Transdermally administered, parenteral and patient-introduced preparations were excluded from our study.

Results

We identified the most common types of errors associated with drug dispensing. The overall error rate in the 2020 cohort was significantly lower (0.9%) than in the 2018 cohort (18.1%) (p < 0.05). Medication errors were observed in 51% of patients in the 2018 cohort, i.e. 42 patients, of which 23 had multiple errors simultaneously. In contrast, in the 2020 cohort, a medication error occurred in 2%, i.e. 2 patients (p < 0.05). When evaluating the potential clinical consequences of medication errors, in the 2018 cohort, the proportion of potentially significant errors was 76.2% and potentially serious errors 21.4%, whereas in the 2020 cohort, only three medication errors were identified in the potentially significant category due to pharmacist intervention, which was significantly lower (p < 0.05). Polypharmacy was detected in 42.2% of patients in the first study and in 12.2% (p < 0.05) in the second study.

Conclusion

Automated individual medication dispensing with pharmacist intervention is a suitable method to increase the safety of hospital medication, reduce medication errors, and thus improve patient safety.

Economic Analysis of Patient's Own Medication, Unit-Use and Ward Stock Utilization: Results of the First Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Medication wastage is causing a cost burden to the healthcare system that is worth millions of dollars. An economic and ecological friendly intervention such as using a patient's own medications (POM) has proven to reduce wastage and save the cost spent by the hospital. The potential benefits of using POM in inpatient settings have yet to be explored in a country with universal health coverage. This study aimed to pilot test the POM intervention in an adult ward setting and to perform the economic analysis of using POM and ward stock during hospitalization.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among the patients admitted to the medical and surgical wards in a public hospital located in Brunei Darussalam between February 2022 and April 2022. Hospitalized adults above 18 years old with regular medications with a minimum length of stay of 48 h and a maximum length of stay of 21 days were included in the study. These eligible patients were divided into a POM group and a non-POM group. The economic analysis of using POM was performed by calculating the direct cost per unit of medication used during admission (from unit-use, ward stock and POM) and comparing the cost spent for both groups. Expired ward stock deemed as medication wastage was determined. Medical research ethics were approved, and all participating patients had given their written informed consent before enrolling in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients aged 63.2 ± 15.8 years participated in this study. The average cost of medication supplied by the inpatient pharmacy for the non-POM group was USD 21.60 ± 34.20 per patient, whereas, for the POM group, it was approximately USD 13.00 ± 18.30 per patient, with a mean difference of USD 8.60 ± 5.17 per patient (95% CI: -3.95, 27.47, p ≥ 0.05). The use of POM minimized 54.03% (USD 625.04) of the total cost spent by the hospital for the POM group within the period of the study.

CONCLUSION

The pilot study showed that the supplied medication cost per patient was not significantly different between the POM and non-POM groups. Nevertheless, the utilization of POM during hospitalization is capable of reducing at least 50% of the total cost spent on inpatient medications by the hospital. The use of POM during hospitalization also helped in reducing the total time spent on the medication process per patient.

An Observational Study of the Impact of a Computerized Physician Order Entry System on the Rate of Medication Errors in an Orthopaedic Surgery Unit

Aim

To assess the impact of the implementation of a Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) associated with a pharmaceutical checking of medication orders on medication errors in the 3 stages of drug management (i.e. prescription, dispensing and administration) in an orthopaedic surgery unit.

Methods

A before-after observational study was conducted in the 66-bed orthopaedic surgery unit of a teaching hospital (700 beds) in Paris France. Direct disguised observation was used to detect errors in prescription, dispensing and administration of drugs, before and after the introduction of computerized prescriptions. Compliance between dispensing and administration on the one hand and the medical prescription on the other hand was studied. The frequencies and types of errors in prescribing, dispensing and administration were investigated.

Results

During the pre and post-CPOE period (two days for each period) 111 and 86 patients were observed, respectively, with corresponding 1,593 and 1,388 prescribed drugs. The use of electronic prescribing led to a significant 92% decrease in prescribing errors (479/1593 prescribed drugs (30.1%) vs 33/1388 (2.4%), p < 0.0001) and to a 17.5% significant decrease in administration errors (209/1222 opportunities (17.1%) vs 200/1413 (14.2%), p < 0.05). No significant difference was found in regards to dispensing errors (430/1219 opportunities (35.3%) vs 449/1407 (31.9%), p = 0.07).

Conclusion

The use of CPOE and a pharmacist checking medication orders in an orthopaedic surgery unit reduced the incidence of medication errors in the prescribing and administration stages. The study results suggest that CPOE is a convenient system for improving the quality and safety of drug management.

The medication process in a psychiatric hospital: are errors a potential threat to patient safety?

PURPOSE

To investigate the frequency, type, and potential severity of errors in several stages of the medication process in an inpatient psychiatric setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using three methods for detecting errors: (1) direct observation; (2) unannounced control visits in the wards collecting dispensed drugs; and (3) chart reviews. All errors, except errors in discharge summaries, were assessed for potential consequences by two clinical pharmacologists.

SETTING

Three psychiatric wards with adult patients at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark, from January 2010-April 2010.

THE OBSERVATIONAL UNIT

The individual handling of medication (prescribing, dispensing, and administering).

RESULTS

In total, 189 errors were detected in 1,082 opportunities for error (17%) of which 84/998 (8%) were assessed as potentially harmful. The frequency of errors was: prescribing, 10/189 (5%); dispensing, 18/189 (10%); administration, 142/189 (75%); and discharge summaries, 19/189 (10%). The most common errors were omission of pro re nata dosing regime in computerized physician order entry, omission of dose, lack of identity control, and omission of drug.

CONCLUSION

Errors throughout the medication process are common in psychiatric wards to an extent which resembles error rates in somatic care. Despite a substantial proportion of errors with potential to harm patients, very few errors were considered potentially fatal. Medical staff needs greater awareness of medication safety and guidelines related to the medication process. Many errors in this study might potentially be prevented by nursing staff when handling medication and observing patients for effect and side effects of medication. The nurses' role in psychiatric medication safety should be further explored as nurses appear to be in the unique position to intercept errors before they reach the patient.