Medication errors in a paediatric teaching hospital in the UK: five years operational experience.

Department of Child Health, University of Glasgow, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill NHS Trust, Glasgow G3 8SJ, UK.
Archives of Disease in Childhood (Impact Factor: 2.91). 01/2001; 83(6):492-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In the past 10 years, medication errors have come to be recognised as an important cause of iatrogenic disease in hospital patients.
To determine the incidence and type of medication errors in a large UK paediatric hospital over a five year period, and to ascertain whether any error prevention programmes had influenced error occurrence.
Retrospective review of medication errors documented in standard reporting forms completed prospectively from April 1994 to August 1999. Main outcome measure was incidence of error reporting, including pre- and post-interventions.
Medication errors occurred in 0.15% of admissions (195 errors; one per 662 admissions). While the highest rate occurred in neonatal intensive care (0.98%), most errors occurred in medical wards. Nurses were responsible for most reported errors (59%). Errors involving the intravenous route were commonest (56%), with antibiotics being the most frequent drug involved (44%). Fifteen (8%) involved a tenfold medication error. Although 18 (9.2%) required active patient intervention, 96% of errors were classified as minor at the time of reporting. Forty eight per cent of parents were not told an error had occurred. The introduction of a policy of double checking all drugs dispensed by pharmacy staff led to a reduction in errors from 9.8 to 6 per year. Changing the error reporting form to make it less punitive increased the error reporting rate from 32.7 to 38 per year.
The overall medication error rate was low. Despite this there are clear opportunities to make system changes to reduce error rates further.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication dosing errors are frequent in neonatal wards. In an Iranian neonatal ward, a 7.5 months study was designed in three periods to compare the effect of Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) without and with decision support functionalities in reducing non-intercepted medication dosing errors in antibiotics and anticonvulsants. Before intervention (Period 1), error rate was 53%, which did not significantly change after the implementation of CPOE without decision support (Period 2). However, errors were significantly reduced to 34% after that the decision support was added to the CPOE (Period 3; P<0.001). Dose errors were more often intercepted than frequency errors. Over-dose was the most frequent type of medication errors and curtailed-interval was the least. Transcription errors did not reduce after the CPOE implementation. Physicians ignored alerts when they could not understand why they appeared. A suggestion is to add explanations about these reasons to increase physicians' compliance with the system's recommendations.
    Journal of Medical Systems 07/2009; · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To systematically examine the research literature to identify which interventions reduce medication errors in pediatric intensive care units. Data Sources: Databases were searched from inception to April 2014. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Studies were included if they involved the conduct of an intervention with the intent of reducing medication errors. Data Synthesis: In all, 34 relevant articles were identified. Apart from 1 study, all involved single-arm, before-and-after designs without a comparative, concurrent control group. A total of 6 types of interventions were utilized: computerized physician order entry (CPOE), intravenous systems (ISs), modes of education (MEs), protocols and guidelines (PGs), pharmacist involvement (PI), and support systems for clinical decision making (SSCDs). Statistically significant reductions in medication errors were achieved in 7/8 studies for CPOE, 2/5 studies for ISs, 9/11 studies for MEs, 1/2 studies for PGs, 2/3 studies for PI, and 3/5 studies for SSCDs. The test for subgroup differences showed that there was no statistically significant difference among the 6 subgroups of interventions, chi(2)(5) = 1.88, P = 0.87. The following risk ratio results for meta-analysis were obtained: CPOE: 0.47 (95% Cl = 0.28, 0.79); IS: 0.37 (95% Cl = 0.19, 0.73); ME: 0.36 (95% Cl = 0.22, 0.58); PG: 0.82 (95% Cl = 0.21, 3.25); PI: 0.39 (95% Cl = 0.10, 1.51), and SSCD: 0.49 (95% Cl = 0.23, 1.03). Conclusions: Available evidence suggests some aspects of CPOE with decision support, ME, and IS may help in reducing medication errors. Good quality, prospective, observational studies are needed for institutions to determine the most effective interventions.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 07/2014; 48(10). DOI:10.1177/1060028014543795 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since 1999, the problem of patient safety has drawn particular attention, becoming a priority in health care. A "medication error" (ME) is any preventable event occurring at any phase of the pharmacotherapy process (ordering, transcribing, dispensing, administering, and monitoring) that leads to, or can lead to, harm to the patient. Hence, MEs can involve every professional of the clinical team. MEs range from those with severe consequences to those with little or no impact on the patient. Although a high ME rate has been found in neonatal wards, newborn safety issues have not been adequately studied until now. Healthcare professionals working in neonatal wards are particularly susceptible to committing MEs due to the peculiarities of newborn patients and of the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) environment. Current neonatal prevention strategies for MEs have been borrowed from adult wards, but many factors such as high costs and organizational barriers have hindered their diffusion. In general, two types of strategies have been proposed: the first strategy consists of identifying human factors that result in errors and redesigning the work in the NICU in order to minimize them; the second one suggests to design and implement effective systems for preventing errors or intercepting them before reaching the patient. In the future, prevention strategies for MEs need to be improved and tailored to the special neonatal population and the NICU environment and, at the same time, every effort will have to be made to support their clinical application.
    08/2014; 3(3):37-44. DOI:10.5409/wjcp.v3.i3.37

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 30, 2014