Influence of Computerised Medication Charts on Medication Errors in a Hospital

[Current situation of electronic medical records in ophthalmological departments in Germany]

BACKGROUND

Electronic medical records are required in ophthalmology clinics to be integrated into digital care networks and efficient clinical registry databases.

AIM OF THE WORK

To assess the prevalence and methods of electronic medical recordkeeping in inpatient ophthalmological care in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to all German university eye hospitals and ophthalmology departments in June 2021. It included 13 open and closed option questions concerning current practices of digital recordkeeping, including the structure of data storage and the recording of billing-relevant codes in the departments.

RESULTS

A total of 44 (44%) out of 100 clinics responded. Patient documentation was completely digital in 15 (34%) clinics and partly digital and paper-based in the remaining 29 (66%). A total of 16 different constellations of documentation programs were specified. The most frequently used programs were Orbis (27%) (Dedalus HealthCare, Bonn, Germany), FIDUS (18%) (Arztservice Wente, Darmstadt, Germany), and SAP/i.s.h.med (16%) (SAP Deutschland, Walldorf, Germany; Cerner Deutschland, Berlin, Germany) and 3 clinics indicated primary use of paper records. Structured documentation of findings was performed in 61% of the departments, while 23% used a semistructured manner and 15% used a nonstructured format. Electronic documents are stored as DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) documents 20% of the clinics and as PDF (Portable Document Format) files in 34% of the clinics while 23% store scanned printouts.

DISCUSSION

Methods of medical record keeping in German eye clinics are heterogeneous, with paper-based documentation continuing to play an important role. This, as well as the high number of different electronic medical record software pose important challenges in terms of interoperability and secondary use of clinical data.

Determination of Senior Nursing Students' Mathematical Perception Skills and Pediatric Medication Calculation Performance

Aim

Math skills in the health field are often used to calculate drug dosage and liquid quantity, body mass and cost analysis. The aim of this research is to determine the senior nursing students' mathematical perception skills and pediatric medication calculation performance.

Method

The population of this descriptive cross-sectional research is composed of 103 nursing students in attending a state university in Izmir, Turkey. Of the 103 nursing students, 97 who answered all the questions comprised the study sample. All the participants took one-month training in the pediatric clinics during the last year of their education. The data were collected using the "Personal Information Form and Mathematics Perception, Information and Pediatric Drug Calculator Skills Survey" developed by the researchers by reviewing the literature.

Results

The mean age of the study participants was 22.24±0.89. Of them, 76.3% were female, 23.7% completed their Pediatric Internship Training in the pediatric inpatient units or the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), 68% thought that their basic mathematics knowledge was adequate, and %30 stated that their dosage calculation, solution preparation and drug preparation skills were insufficient. In addition, the rate of the correct answers they gave to the questions on percentages, fractions and conversions was low.

Conclusion

In the drug application process; not only practical skills, but also the theoretical knowledge should be considered. A nurse's responsibility does not end once he/she administers medication. Being careful throughout the entire process is one of the nurse's legal and ethical responsibilities. In this study, the students' drug calculation skills were inadequate.

Prescription errors in cancer chemotherapy: Omissions supersede potentially harmful errors

Objective:

To estimate the frequency and type of prescription errors in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Settings and Design:

We conducted a cross-sectional study at the day care unit of the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC) of a tertiary care hospital in South India.

Materials and Methods:

All prescriptions written during July to September 2013 for patients attending the out-patient department of the RCC to be treated at the day care center were included in this study. The prescriptions were analyzed for omission of standard information, usage of brand names, abbreviations and legibility. The errors were further classified into potentially harmful ones and not harmful based on the likelihood of resulting in harm to the patient. Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate the frequency of prescription errors and expressed as total number of errors and percentage.

Results:

A total of 4253 prescribing errors were found in 1500 prescriptions (283.5%), of which 47.1% were due to omissions like name, age and diagnosis and 22.5% were due to usage of brand names. Abbreviations of pre-medications and anticancer drugs accounted for 29.2% of the errors. Potentially harmful errors that were likely to result in serious consequences to the patient were estimated to be 11.7%.

Conclusions:

Most of the errors intercepted in our study are due to a high patient load and inattention of the prescribers to omissions in prescription. Redesigning prescription forms and sensitizing prescribers to the importance of writing prescriptions without errors may help in reducing errors to a large extent.

Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors are common. It has been suggested that the severity as well as the frequency of errors should be assessed when measuring prescribing error rates. This would provide more clinically relevant information, and allow more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce errors.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to describe the tools used to assess prescribing error severity in studies reporting hospital prescribing error rates.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL (January 1985-January 2013).

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies that reported the detection and rate of prescribing errors in prescriptions for adult and/or pediatric hospital inpatients, or elaborated on the properties of severity assessment tools used by these studies. Studies not published in English, or that evaluated errors for only one disease or drug class, one route of administration, or one type of prescribing error, were excluded, as were letters and conference abstracts. One reviewer screened all abstracts and obtained complete articles. A second reviewer assessed 10 % of all abstracts and complete articles to check reliability of the screening process.

APPRAISAL

Tools were appraised for country and method of development, whether the tool assessed actual or potential harm, levels of severity assessed, and results of any validity and reliability studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of 107 studies measuring prescribing error rates included an assessment of severity. Forty tools were identified that assessed severity, only two of which had acceptable reliability and validity. In general, little information was given on the method of development or ease of use of the tools, although one tool required four reviewers and was thus potentially time consuming.

LIMITATIONS

The review was limited to studies written in English. One of the review authors was also the author of one of the tools, giving a potential source of bias.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of severity assessment tools are used in the literature. Developing a basis of comparison between tools would potentially be helpful in comparing findings across studies. There is a potential need to establish a less time-consuming method of measuring severity of prescribing error, with acceptable international reliability and validity.

Prevalence, nature and potential preventability of adverse drug events - a population-based medical record study of 4970 adults

AIMS

To estimate the 3 month prevalence of adverse drug events (ADEs), categories of ADEs and preventable ADEs, and the preventability of ADEs among adults in Sweden. Further, to identify drug classes and organ systems associated with ADEs and estimate their seriousness.

METHODS

A random sample of 5025 adults in a Swedish county council in 2008 was drawn from the Total Population Register. All their medical records in 29 inpatient care departments in three hospitals, 110 specialized outpatient clinics and 51 primary care units were reviewed retrospectively in a stepwise manner, and complemented with register data on dispensed drugs. ADEs, including adverse drug reactions (ADRs), sub-therapeutic effects of drug therapy (STEs), drug dependence and abuse, drug intoxications from overdose, and morbidities due to drug-related untreated indication, were detected during a 3 month study period, and assessed for preventability.

RESULTS

Among 4970 included individuals, the prevalence of ADEs was 12.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.1, 12.9%), and preventable ADEs 5.6% (95% CI 5.0, 6.2%). ADRs (6.9%; 95% CI 6.2, 7.6%) and STEs (6.4%; 95% CI 5.8, 7.1%) were more prevalent than the other ADEs. Of the ADEs, 38.8% (95% CI 35.8-41.9%) was preventable, varying by ADE category and seriousness. ADEs were frequently associated with nervous system and cardiovascular drugs, but the associated drugs and affected organs varied by ADE category.

CONCLUSIONS

The considerable burden of ADEs and preventable ADEs from commonly used drugs across care settings warrants large-scale efforts to redesign safer, higher quality healthcare systems. The heterogeneous nature of the ADE categories should be considered in research and clinical practice for preventing, detecting and mitigating ADEs.

Causes of medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented to minimise their occurrence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review and appraise empirical evidence relating to the causes of medication administration errors (MAEs) in hospital settings.

DATA SOURCES

Nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ASSIA, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Social Science Citations Index) were searched between 1985 and May 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible publications through title analysis followed by abstract and then full text examination. English language publications reporting empirical data on causes of MAEs were included. Reference lists of included articles and relevant review papers were hand searched for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they did not report data on specific MAEs, used accounts from individuals not directly involved in the MAE concerned or were presented as conference abstracts with insufficient detail.

DATA APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

A total of 54 unique studies were included. Causes of MAEs were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation. Studies were assessed to determine relevance to the research question and how likely the results were to reflect the potential underlying causes of MAEs based on the method(s) used.

RESULTS

Slips and lapses were the most commonly reported unsafe acts, followed by knowledge-based mistakes and deliberate violations. Error-provoking conditions influencing administration errors included inadequate written communication (prescriptions, documentation, transcription), problems with medicines supply and storage (pharmacy dispensing errors and ward stock management), high perceived workload, problems with ward-based equipment (access, functionality), patient factors (availability, acuity), staff health status (fatigue, stress) and interruptions/distractions during drug administration. Few studies sought to determine the causes of intravenous MAEs. A number of latent pathway conditions were less well explored, including local working culture and high-level managerial decisions. Causes were often described superficially; this may be related to the use of quantitative surveys and observation methods in many studies, limited use of established error causation frameworks to analyse data and a predominant focus on issues other than the causes of MAEs among studies.

LIMITATIONS

As only English language publications were included, some relevant studies may have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from studies included in this systematic review suggests that MAEs are influenced by multiple systems factors, but if and how these arise and interconnect to lead to errors remains to be fully determined. Further research with a theoretical focus is needed to investigate the MAE causation pathway, with an emphasis on ensuring interventions designed to minimise MAEs target recognised underlying causes of errors to maximise their impact.

Detection and correct handling of prescribing errors in Dutch hospital pharmacies using test patients

BACKGROUND

Hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians play a major role in detecting prescribing errors by medication surveillance. At present the frequency of detected and correctly handled prescribing errors is unclear, as are factors associated with correct handling.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the frequency of detection of prescribing errors and the frequency of correct handling, as well as factors associated with correct handling of prescribing errors by hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

SETTING

This study was conducted in 57 Dutch hospital pharmacies.

METHOD

Prospective observational study with test patients, using a case-control design to identify factors associated with correct handling. A questionnaire was used to collect the potential factors. Test patients containing prescribing errors were developed by an expert panel of hospital pharmacists (a total of 40 errors in nine medication records divided among three test patients; each test patient was used in 3 rounds; on average 4.5 prescribing error per patient per round). Prescribing errors were defined as dosing errors or therapeutic errors (contra-indication, drug-drug interaction, (pseudo)duplicate medication). The errors were selected on relevance and unequivocalness. The panel also defined how the errors should be handled in practice using national guidelines and this was defined as 'correct handling'. The test patients had to be treated as real patients while conducting medication surveillance. The pharmacists and technicians were asked to report detected errors to the investigator.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The percentages of detected and correctly handled prescribing errors were the main outcome measures. Factors associated with correct handling were determined, using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine percent of the total number of intentionally added prescribing errors were detected and 57 % were handled correctly by the hospital pharmacists and technicians. The use of a computer system for medication surveillance compared to no computer system was independently associated with correct handling [odds ratio (OR) 15.39 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.62-65.50] for computerized physician order entry system; OR 15.40 (95 % CI 3.61-65.70) for order entry by pharmacy technicians), but because the reference category contained only one hospital these results can't be interpreted. Furthermore, manual screening of dosages in children with or without computerized surveillance compared to no dosage checks for children [OR 2.02 (95 % CI 1.06-3.84)], qualified pharmacy technicians compared to no qualified pharmacy technicians [OR 1.32 (95 % CI 1.03-1.67)] and pharmacy technicians using protocols compared to ones not using protocols [OR 1.30 (95 % CI 1.04-1.61)] were independently associated with correct handling.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the quality of medication surveillance in Dutch hospital pharmacies can be subject to improvement and the identified factors may give direction to such improvements.

Prevalence and perceived preventability of self-reported adverse drug events--a population-based survey of 7099 adults

Purpose

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common and often preventable among inpatients, but self-reported ADEs have not been investigated in a representative sample of the general public. The objectives of this study were to estimate the 1-month prevalence of self-reported ADEs among the adult general public, and the perceived preventability of 2 ADE categories: adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and sub-therapeutic effects (STEs).

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, a postal survey was sent in October 2010 to a random sample of 13 931 Swedish residents aged ≥18 years. Self-reported ADEs experienced during the past month included ADRs, STEs, drug dependence, drug intoxications and morbidity due to drug-related untreated indication. ADEs could be associated with prescription, non-prescription or herbal drugs. The respondents estimated whether ADRs and STEs could have been prevented. ADE prevalences in age groups (18–44, 45–64, or ≥65 years) were compared.

Results

Of 7099 respondents (response rate 51.0%), ADEs were reported by 19.4% (95% confidence interval, 18.5–20.3%), and the prevalence did not differ by age group (p>0.05). The prevalences of self-reported ADRs, STEs, and morbidities due to drug-related untreated indications were 7.8% (7.2–8.4%), 7.6% (7.0–8.2%) and 8.1% (7.5–8.7%), respectively. The prevalence of self-reported drug dependence was 2.2% (1.9–2.6%), and drug intoxications 0.2% (0.1–0.3%). The respondents considered 19.2% (14.8–23.6%) of ADRs and STEs preventable. Although reported drugs varied between ADE categories, most ADEs were attributable to commonly dispensed drugs. Drugs reported for all and preventable events were similar.

Conclusions

One-fifth of the adult general public across age groups reported ADEs during the past month, indicating a need for prevention strategies beyond hospitalised patients. For this, the underlying causes of ADEs should increasingly be investigated. The high burden of ADEs and preventable ADEs from widely used drugs across care settings supports redesigning a safer healthcare system to adequately tackle the problem.

Drug administration errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Drug administration in the hospital setting is the last barrier before a possible error reaches the patient.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of administration error rate detected by the observation method.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library from 1966 to December 2011 and reference lists of included studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Observational studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, and randomized controlled trials that measured the rate of administration errors in inpatients were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers (senior pharmacists) independently identified studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data; the second reviewer checked the data. The main outcome was the error rate calculated as being the number of errors without wrong time errors divided by the Total Opportunity for Errors (TOE, sum of the total number of doses ordered plus the unordered doses given), and multiplied by 100. For studies that reported it, clinical impact was reclassified into four categories from fatal to minor or no impact. Due to a large heterogeneity, results were expressed as median values (interquartile range, IQR), according to their study design.

RESULTS

Among 2088 studies, a total of 52 reported TOE. Most of the studies were cross-sectional studies (N=46). The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was 10.5% [IQR: 7.3%-21.7%]. No fatal error was observed and most errors were classified as minor in the 18 studies in which clinical impact was analyzed. We did not find any evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration errors are frequent among inpatients. The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was about 10%. A standardization of administration error rate using the same denominator (TOE), numerator and types of errors is essential for further publications.

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.

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.

Terms used in patient safety related to medication: a literature review

PURPOSE

There is a lack of homogeneity in the terminology used in the context of patient safety related to medication. The aim of this review was to identify the terms and definitions used in patient safety related to medication within the scientific literature.

METHODS

Original and review articles that were indexed between 1998 and 2008 in MEDLINE and EMBASE and contained terms used in patient safety related to medication were included. Terms and definitions were extracted and categorised according to whether its definition referred to the process of medication use, or to the clinical outcome of medication use, or both.

RESULTS

Of 2564 articles, 147 were included. Sixty terms used in patient safety related to medication with 189 different definitions were identified. Among terms that referred only to the process of medication use (n = 23), medication error provided the greatest number of definitions (n = 29). Among terms that referred only to the clinical outcome of medication use (n = 31), adverse drug event provided the greatest number of definitions (n = 15). Finally, among terms that referred both to the process of use and to the clinical outcome of medication use (n = 13), drug-related problem provided the greatest number of definitions (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of terms and definitions are used in patient safety related to medication. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to compare the results among studies and to appreciate the true magnitude of the problem. Classifying and unifying the terminology is necessary to advance in patient safety strategies.

Drug dispensing errors in a ward stock system

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of drug dispensing errors in a traditional ward stock system operated by nurses and to investigate the effect of potential contributing factors. This was a descriptive study conducted in a teaching hospital from January 2005 to June 2007. In five wards, samples of dispensed solid drugs were collected prospectively and compared with the prescriptions. Data were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Overall, 2173 samples were collected, 95.5% of which were correctly dispensed (95% CI 94.5-96.2). In total, 124 errors in 6715 opportunities for error were identified; error rate of 1.85 errors per 100 opportunities for error (95% CI 1.54-2.20). Omission of a dose was the predominant type of error while vitamins and minerals, drugs for acid-related diseases and antipsychotic drugs were the drugs most frequently affected by errors. Multivariable analysis showed that surgical and psychiatric settings were more susceptible to involvement in dispensing errors and that polypharmacy was a risk factor. In this ward stock system, dispensing errors are relatively common, they depend on speciality and are associated with polypharmacy. These results indicate that strategies to reduce dispensing errors should address polypharmacy and focus on high-risk units. This should, however, be substantiated by a future trial.

The impact of computerized prescribing on error rate in a department of Oncology/Hematology

AIMS

A comparison of prescribing errors detected for computerized and spreadsheet prescriptions in the Department of Hematology and Oncology of the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital.

METHODS

A prospective audit of 1941 prescriptions for chemotherapy was made from January to September 2005. Each new cycle of chemotherapy ordered was monitored for prescribing errors, which were analyzed by method of prescription (computerized or spreadsheet), prescriber, type, and severity.

RESULTS

Computerized prescribing reduced errors by 42% (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.47-0.72). Errors occurred in 20% of spreadsheet prescriptions compared with 12% of the computerized prescriptions. There was a significant difference in error rates of three different prescribers whichever prescribing system was used. The proportion of errors that were minor was reduced and serious was increased with little change in the proportion of significant or life-threatening errors.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of computerized prescribing on adverse drug events requires further evaluation. Prescriber training may be important in further reducing errors. The implementation of all the existing functions of the electronic system should lead to further reduction in errors.

Computerized provider order entry and patient safety

Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support (CDS) are advocated health care information technologies for improving patient safety through reduction and prevention of medication errors. CPOE and DCS target specific errors in medication processes, particularly in prescribing and ordering. These are of particular importance in pediatrics, because children may be more vulnerable to prescribing errors than adults. Studies of CPOE/CDS performed at academic medical centers have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing medication process errors in pediatrics, but scant data so far show effects on health outcomes. CPOE/CDS adoption requires significant expertise in health care processes, information technology, and change management. Adoption is a high-cost, high-risk venture with political implications.