Article

Non-Therapeutic Medication Omissions: Incidence and Predictors at an Australian Hospital

Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research 09/2011; 41(3). DOI: 10.1002/j.2055-2335.2011.tb00859.x

ABSTRACT Background
The inconsistent definition of non-therapeutic medication omissions, under-reporting, and a poor understanding of their associated factors hamper efforts to improve medication administration practices.AimTo examine the incidence of non-therapeutic medication omissions among acutely ill medical and surgical adult patients; and to identify the patient-, drug- and system-related predictors of these omissions.MethodA medication chart audit of 288 acutely ill adult medical and surgical patients admitted to 4 target wards (2 surgical and 2 medical) at an Australian hospital. Patients admitted to these wards from December 2008 to November 2009, with at least one regularly prescribed medication, were eligible. The sample was stratified according to gender, season and ward. A medication chart audit identified medication omissions, and data were collected on gender, age, length of stay, comorbidities, medication history and clinical pharmacy review.ResultsOf the 288 medication charts audited, 220 (75%) had one or more medication omissions. Of the 15 020 medication administration episodes, there were 1687 omissions, resulting in an omission rate per medication administration episode of 11%. Analgesics and aperients were the most frequently omitted medications, with failure to sign the medication record and patient refusal, the main reasons for omission. Female gender (p < 0.001) and the number of medication administration episodes (p < 0.001) were statistically significant predictors of non-therapeutic medication omissions.Conclusion
The high incidence of medication omissions suggests there is need for an agreed definition of medication omission and its inclusion as a reportable incident. Increasing medication reconciliation via implementation of the Medication Management Plan may also reduce the opportunity for error.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Sharon Leanne Latimer, Aug 28, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
229 Views
    • "Patient education about PIP and patient participation in their care, should occur during the initial nursing PI risk assessment and continue throughout the patient's hospitalization. Gender differences in the delivery of nursing care have been reported in the areas of cardiology (Poisson et al. 2010) and medication errors (Latimer et al. 2011). Our study found male participants were less frequently repositioned compared with females. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimTo determine the frequency of patient repositioning across three consecutive nursing shifts (day, evening and night) and to identify predictors of repositioning frequency.Background Patient repositioning is a frequently implemented pressure injury prevention strategy. Yet, little is known about how often it should be implemented, or the frequency of movement among hospitalized patients with reduced mobility.DesignAn observational prospective study.Methods Chart audits were used to gather clinical and demographic data. Semi-structured observations were conducted every 30 minutes for a continuous 24-hour period. Observational data included the patient's body position, the frequency of repositioning, assistance require to reposition and the use of support surfaces.ResultsPatients were repositioned frequently during the day and evening and least at night time. Elevation of the head of the bed (1–45°) was the most frequently adopted position. The independent predictors of repositioning frequency were age and gender, with older patients and males repositioned less frequently.
    07/2015; 2(2). DOI:10.1002/nop2.20
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Little is known about the influences on nurses’ decisions to withhold surgical patients’ oral medications pre and postoperatively or the degree to which decisions are consistent. The literature is devoid of information that clarifies whether or at what point withholding a particular oral medication may constitute a medication error. Purpose This study sought to redress this gap in knowledge and identify factors influencing nurses’ decisions about withholding surgical patients’ oral medications. Methods This interpretive study recruited a convenience sample consisting of nine nurses from surgical wards in public and private hospitals on the Gold Coast, Queensland and northern New South Wales to participate in individual interviews. Data were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis to identify common themes. Findings Three main themes illustrated important influences on nurses ‘decisions, including ward culture, nurses’ perceptions of their roles and patient factors. Conclusions The complex issues surrounding nurses’ decisions when withholding surgical patients’ oral medications are identified in this research. The findings will help to inform quality and safety in future medication management and lead to higher quality and safer patient care.
    Collegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia 07/2013; 21(4). DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2013.05.004 · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Polypharmacy and drug omissions (DO) (i.e., drugs prescribed but not administered) may impact on quality of life of hospice inpatients. Aim: The study's objective was to assess for polypharmacy and DO across hospice inpatient units in Northern Ireland (NI). Design: A retrospective chart review of consecutive admissions to five adult hospices in NI in 2011-2012 was performed. Only regularly prescribed oral and nebulized medications were analyzed. Results: Inpatient admissions (n=138) were reviewed (58% male, median age 68, 91% had cancer). The average number of regularly prescribed medications was eight (range 0-17) on admission, 10 (1-21) at discharge, and two (0-15) at time of death. Of all prescribed doses, 8.8% were omitted. The most frequent DOs were laxatives (38%), mouth care (11%), and mineral supplements (9%). Reasons for DO included patient refusal (46%), patient asleep or drowsy (20%), and drug not available (7%). DOs numbering 197 lasted 24 to 72 hours. No action was taken by medical staff for 79% of these. DOs numbering 85 lasted over 72 hours. While fewer drug doses were prescribed for patients who died during admission, the proportion of DO was higher (12.4%) than for those discharged (6.9%). DO increased in the last week of life (23%). Conclusions: Polypharmacy is prevalent among hospice inpatients. Drugs omitted amounted to 8.8%, with the frequency of DO increasing in those who were dying. Documentation justifying DO was lacking. Daily focused drug chart review, pharmacy support, and electronic prescribing may all help to reduce and rationalize medication burden and aid prompt and effective management of DO.
    Journal of palliative medicine 10/2013; DOI:10.1089/jpm.2013.0090 · 2.06 Impact Factor
Show more