Analgesic Medication Errors in North Carolina Nursing Homes

Systematic review of types of safety incidents and the processes and systems used for safety incident reporting in care homes

AIMS

To identify the safety incident reporting systems and processes used within care homes to capture staff reports of safety incidents, and the types and characteristics of safety incidents captured by safety incident reporting systems.

DESIGN

Systematic review following PRISMA reporting guidelines.

METHODS

Databases were searched January 2023 for studies published after year 2000, written in English, focus on care homes and incident reporting systems. Data were extracted using a bespoke data extraction tool, and quality was assessed. Data were analysed descriptively and using narrative synthesis, with types and characteristics of incidents analysed using the International Classification for Patient Safety.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, HMIC, ASSISA, Nursing and Allied Health Database, MedNar and OpenGrey.

RESULTS

We identified 8150 papers with 106 studies eligible for inclusion, all conducted in high-income countries. Numerous incident reporting processes and systems were identified. Using modalities, typical incident reporting systems captured all types of incidents via electronic computerized reporting, with reports made by nursing staff and captured information about patient demographics, the incident and post-incident actions, whilst some reporting systems included medication- and falls-specific information. Reports were most often used to summarize data and identify trends. Incidents categories most often were patient behaviour, clinical process/procedure, documentation, medication/intravenous fluids and falls. Various contributing and mitigating factors and actions to reduce risk were identified. The most reported action to reduce risk was to improve safety culture. Individual outcomes were often reported, but social/economic impact of incidents and organizational outcomes were rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated a complex picture of incident reporting in care homes with evidence limited to high-income countries, highlighting a significant knowledge gap. The findings emphasize the central role of nursing staff in reporting safety incidents and the lack of standardized reporting systems and processes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The findings from this study can inform the development or adaptation of safety incident reporting systems in care home settings, which is of relevance for nurses, care home managers, commissioners and regulators. This can help to improve patient care by identifying common safety issues across various types of care home and inform learning responses, which require further research.

IMPACT

This study addresses a gap in the literature on the systems and processes used to report safety incidents in care homes across many countries, and provides a comprehensive overview of safety issues identified via incident reporting.

REPORTING METHOD

PRISMA.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A member of the research team is a patient and public representative, involved from study conception.

Opioid Medication Errors in Patients Followed by Home Palliative Care Support Teams in the Community of Madrid

The presence of comorbidities and complex drug regimens makes palliative care patients more susceptible to opioid medication errors. Most of the studies conducted so far have mainly focused on patients admitted to hospitals or hospice facilities. During this study, we examined the frequency of medication errors with opioids and the causes and consequences for patients, followed by home palliative care teams. Errors occurred in 39% of patients (n = 378) and 27% of all prescribed opioids (n = 708). Of the 148 (39%) patients with error/s in the opioid/s prescribed, in 55% the patient and/or the caregiver were involved in the error; in 26% the health care providers were involved. An association was found between the presence of error in the prescribed opioid and the level of patient education, p = .038, and with the number of days of follow-up, p < .001. Considering their formulation, the prescribed opioids were associated with medication error, type of error, and cause of the error. The study demonstrated an association between the route of administration and error p < .004, and type of error p < .001.

Threats to Narcotic Safety-A Narrative Review of Narcotic Incidents, Discrepancies and Near-Misses Within a Large Canadian Health System

Background

Canada is currently experiencing an opioid crisis.

Purpose

Nurses are the largest number of frontline healthcare professionals in Canada who administer narcotic pharmacotherapy, hence, they are ideally placed to improve narcotic stewardship in hospitals. Our study aims to understand the characteristics of narcotic incidents and hence recommend interventions for narcotic stewardship.

Methods

Our study was conducted within a 442-bed academic health sciences center in Ontario. We extracted anonymized narcotic incident reports which occurred over a 3-year period from the SAFER System. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze narcotic incidents and their contributory factors.

Results

272 narcotic incident reports were submitted to SAFER within the study period. Most incidents (51%) involved hydromorphone and morphine and were primarily categorized as Level I (n = 154) and Level II (n = 60). Incorrect narcotic dosing (44%), and narcotic count discrepancies (27%) were most commonly reported with active failures being the most commonly reported contributory factors such as failure to review medication orders prior to narcotic administration.

Conclusions

Nurses have an important role in narcotic safety as an intermediary between narcotic administration and incident reporting. Further research is needed to understand the enablers, barriers and opportunities for nurses and other healthcare professionals to improve narcotic stewardship.

Clinicians' perceptions of opioid error-contributing factors in inpatient palliative care services: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Opioid errors are a leading cause of patient harm and adversely impact palliative care inpatients' pain and symptom management. Yet, the factors contributing to opioid errors in palliative care are poorly understood. Identifying and better understanding the individual and system factors contributing to these errors is required to inform targeted strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore palliative care clinicians' perceptions of the factors contributing to opioid errors in Australian inpatient palliative care services.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using focus groups or semi-structured interviews.

SETTINGS

Three specialist palliative care inpatient services in New South Wales, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Inpatient palliative care clinicians who are involved with, and/or have oversight of, the services' opioid delivery or quality and safety processes.

METHODS

Deductive thematic content analysis of the qualitative data. The Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework was applied to identify error-contributing factors.

FINDINGS

A total of 58 clinicians participated in eight focus groups and 20 semi-structured interviews. Nine key error contributory factor domains were identified, including: active failures; task characteristics of opioid preparation; clinician inexperience; sub-optimal skill mix; gaps in support from central functions; the drug preparation environment; and sub-optimal clinical communication.

CONCLUSION

This study identified multiple system-level factors contributing to opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services. Any quality and safety initiatives targeting safe opioid delivery in specialist palliative care services needs to consider the full range of contributing factors, from individual to systems/latent factors, which promote error-causing conditions.

Opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services: a retrospective review

Opioids are a high-risk medicine frequently used to manage palliative patients’ cancer-related pain and other symptoms. Despite the high volume of opioid use in inpatient palliative care services, and the potential for patient harm, few studies have focused on opioid errors in this population.

Objectives

To (i) identify the number of opioid errors reported by inpatient palliative care services, (ii) identify reported opioid error characteristics and (iii) determine the impact of opioid errors on palliative patient outcomes.

Methods

A 24-month retrospective review of opioid errors reported in three inpatient palliative care services in one Australian state.

Results

Of the 55 opioid errors identified, 84% reached the patient. Most errors involved morphine (35%) or hydromorphone (29%). Opioid administration errors accounted for 76% of reported opioid errors, largely due to omitted dose (33%) or wrong dose (24%) errors. Patients were more likely to receive a lower dose of opioid than ordered as a direct result of an opioid error (57%), with errors adversely impacting pain and/or symptom management in 42% of patients. Half (53%) of the affected patients required additional treatment and/or care as a direct consequence of the opioid error.

Conclusion

This retrospective review has provided valuable insights into the patterns and impact of opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services. Iatrogenic harm related to opioid underdosing errors contributed to palliative patients’ unrelieved pain. Better understanding the factors that contribute to opioid errors and the role of safety culture in the palliative care service context warrants further investigation.

Quantifying the burden of opioid medication errors in adult oncology and palliative care settings: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the primary pharmacological treatment for cancer pain and, in the palliative care setting, are routinely used to manage symptoms at the end of life. Opioids are one of the most frequently reported drug classes in medication errors causing patient harm. Despite their widespread use, little is known about the incidence and impact of opioid medication errors in oncology and palliative care settings.

AIM

To determine the incidence, types and impact of reported opioid medication errors in adult oncology and palliative care patient settings.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases and the grey literature were searched from 1980 to August 2014. Empirical studies published in English, reporting data on opioid medication error incidence, types or patient impact, within adult oncology and/or palliative care services, were included. Popay's narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data.

RESULTS

Five empirical studies were included in this review. Opioid error incidence rate was difficult to ascertain as each study focussed on a single narrow area of error. The predominant error type related to deviation from opioid prescribing guidelines, such as incorrect dosing intervals. None of the included studies reported the degree of patient harm resulting from opioid errors.

CONCLUSION

This review has highlighted the paucity of the literature examining opioid error incidence, types and patient impact in adult oncology and palliative care settings. Defining, identifying and quantifying error reporting practices for these populations should be an essential component of future oncology and palliative care quality and safety initiatives.

Safe medication management and use of narcotics in a Joint Commission International-accredited academic medical center hospital in the People's Republic of China

Safe medication management and use of high-alert narcotics should arouse concern. Risk management experiences in this respect in a large-scale Joint Commission International (JCI)-accredited academic medical center hospital in the People’s Republic of China during 2011–2015, focusing on organizational, educational, motivational, and information technological measures in storage, prescribing, preparing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring of medication are summarized. The intensity of use of meperidine in hospitalized patients in 2015 was one-fourth that in 2011. A 100% implementation rate of standard storage of narcotics has been achieved in the hospital since December 2012. A “Plan, Do, Check, Act” cycle was efficient because the ratio of number of inappropriate narcotics prescriptions to total number of narcotics prescriptions for inpatients decreased from August 2014 to December 2014 (28.22% versus 2.96%, P=0.0000), and it was controlled below 6% from then on. During the journey to good pain management ward accreditation by the Ministry of Health, People’s Republic of China, (April 2012–October 2012), the medical oncology ward successfully demonstrated an increase in the pain screening rate at admission from 43.5% to 100%, cancer pain control rate from 85% to 96%, and degree of satisfaction toward pain nursing from 95.4% to 100% (all P-values <0.05). Oral morphine equivalent dosage in the good pain management ward increased from 2.3 mg/patient before June 2012 to 54.74 mg/patient in 2014. From 2011 to 2015, the oral morphine equivalent dose per discharged patient increased from 8.52 mg/person to 20.36 mg/person. A 100% implementation rate of independent double-check prior to narcotics dosing has been achieved since January 2013. From 2014 to 2015, the ratio of number of narcotics-related medication errors to number of discharged patients significantly decreased (6.95% versus 0.99%, P=0.0000). Taken together, continuous quality improvements have been achieved in safe medication management and use of narcotics by an integrated multidisciplinary collaboration during the journey to JCI accreditation and in the post-JCI accreditation era.

Assessment of a new instrument for detecting preventable adverse drug reactions

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance centres (PVCs) in the World Health Organization (WHO) Programme for International Drug Monitoring have demonstrated their ability to detect preventable adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in their databases. In this field, there is no gold-standard method for detecting medication errors and evaluating ADR preventability. Therefore, we developed, from existing tools, a preventability assessment method: the 'P Method' (PM).

OBJECTIVE

To present the PM and to evaluate its inter-rater reliability.

METHODS

The PM includes 20 explicit criteria for assessing ADR preventability. This approach is based on identification of any potentially preventable risk factor that increases the likelihood of ADR occurrence. The outcome of the preventability assessment results in one of three possible scores: 'preventable', 'non-preventable' or 'not assessable'. The PM was tested in a multicentre study involving nine national PVCs. Two experienced reviewers at each participating PVC independently analysed the preventability of 183 ADRs, applying the PM.

RESULTS

The overall agreement between all reviewers for assessment of ADR preventability was 'fair', with a kappa value of 0.27 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.40]. The level of agreement between reviewer pairs ranged from 'slight', with a kappa value of 0.12 (95 % CI -0.03 to 0.27), to 'substantial', with a kappa value of 0.69 (95 % CI 0.48-0.89).

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the agreements and disagreements between reviewers highlighted where improvements might be made. Given that no standard assessment tool exists in the WHO Programme, the transparency of the assessment process in this method provides a substantial basis for further development and for support in signalling possible preventability.

Managing pain medications in long-term care: nurses' views

The purpose of this study was to explore nurses' perceptions of their current practices related to administering pain medications to long-term care (LTC) residents. A cross-sectional survey design was used, including both quantitative and open-ended questions. Data were collected from 165 nurses (59% response rate) at nine LTC homes in southern Ontario, Canada. The majority (85%) felt that the medication administration system was adequate to help them manage residents' pain and 98% felt comfortable administering narcotics. In deciding to administer a narcotic, nurses were influenced by pain assessments, physician orders, diagnosis, past history, effectiveness of non-narcotics and fear of making dosage miscalculations or developing addictions. Finally, most nurses stated that they trusted the physicians and pharmacists to ensure orders were safe. These findings highlight nurses' perceptions of managing pain medications in LTC and related areas where continuing education initiatives for nurses are needed.