National Study on the Distribution, Causes, and Consequences of Voluntarily Reported Medication Errors Between the ICU and Non-ICU Settings
1 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2 Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3 Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 5 Armstrong Institute of Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Critical care medicine
(Impact Factor: 6.31).
12/2012; 41(2). DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318274156a
OBJECTIVE:: To compare the distribution, causes, and consequences of medication errors in the ICU with those in non-ICU settings. DESIGN:: A cross-sectional study of all hospital ICU and non-ICU medication errors reported to the MEDMARX system between 1999 and 2005. Adjusted odds ratios are presented. SETTING:: Hospitals participating in the MEDMARX reporting system. INTERVENTIONS:: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: MEDMARX is an anonymous, self-reported, confidential, deidentified, internet-accessible medication error reporting program that allows hospitals to report, track, and share medication error data. There were 839,553 errors reported from 537 hospitals. ICUs accounted for 55,767 (6.6%) errors, of which 2,045 (3.7%) were considered harmful. Non-ICUs accounted for 783,800 (93.4%) errors, of which 14,471 (1.9%) were harmful. Errors most often originated in the administration phase (ICU 44% vs. non-ICU 33%; odds ratio 1.63 [1.43-1.86]). The most common error type was omission (ICU 26% vs. non-ICU 28%; odds ratio 1.00 [0.91-1.10]). Among harmful errors, dispensing devices (ICU 14% vs. non-ICU 7.1%; odds ratio 2.09 [1.69-2.59]) and calculation mistakes (ICU 9.8% vs. non-ICU 5.3%; odds ratio 1.82 [1.48-2.24]) were more commonly identified to be the cause in the ICU compared to the non-ICU setting. ICU errors were more likely to be associated with any harm (odds ratio 1.89 [1.62-2.17]), permanent harm (odds ratio 2.45 [1.17-5.13]), harm requiring life-sustaining intervention (odds ratio 2.91 [1.86-4.56]), or death (odds ratio 2.48 [1.18-5.19]). When an error did occur, patients and their caregivers were rarely informed (ICU 1.5% vs. non-ICU 2.1%; odds ratio 0.63 [0.48-0.84]) by the time of reporting. CONCLUSIONS:: More harmful errors are reported in ICU than non-ICU settings. Medication errors occur frequently in the administration phase in the ICU. When errors occur, patients and their caregivers are rarely informed. Consideration should be given to developing additional safeguards against ICU errors, particularly during drug administration, and eliminating barriers to error disclosures.
Available from: Mansour Mansour
- "The three most reported types of medication incidents in the UK involve: wrong dose; omitted or delayed medicines; or wrong medicine (NPSA 2009), although 90% of these errors led to no or low harm. Omission was also identified as a key error in the medication administration according to a national study of voluntarily reported medication errors in the US (Latif et al. 2013). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To explore nursing students' experiences of patient safety and peer reporting using hypothetical medication administration scenarios.
Pre-registration nurse training is tasked with the preparation of students able to provide safe, high quality nursing care. How students' contextualise teaching related to patient safety, risk recognition and management in the clinical setting is less clear.
A total of 321 third year students enrolled in the final semester of an adult branch pre-registration nursing programme in 2011 in a UK university were surveyed. Using free texts, the questionnaire contained hypothetical medication administration scenarios where patient safety could potentially be at risk. Students' qualitative responses were analysed using thematic analysis.
The response rate was 58% (n = 186). Four themes were identified from the scenarios: (1) Protecting patient safety (2) Willingness to compromise; (3) Avoiding responsibility; (4) Consequences from my actions.
The findings underscore the importance of contextual teaching about risk management, practical techniques for error management and leadership for optimal patient safety in nursing curricula.
Nurse managers are role models for nursing students in the clinical setting. Nursing management must lead, by example, the patient safety agenda in the clinical setting.
Journal of Nursing Management 08/2013; 22(3). DOI:10.1111/jonm.12134 · 1.50 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Medication errors in intensive care units put patients at risk for injury or death every day. Safety requires an organized and systematic approach to improving the tasks, technology, environment, and organizational culture associated with medication systems. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model can help leaders and health care providers understand the complicated and high-risk work associated with critical care. Using this model, the author combines a human factors approach with the well-known structure-process-outcome model of quality improvement to examine research literature. The literature review reveals that human factors, including stress, high workloads, knowledge deficits, and performance deficits, are associated with medication errors. Factors contributing to medication errors are frequent interruptions, communication problems, and poor fit of health information technology to the workflow of providers. Multifaceted medication safety interventions are needed so that human factors and system problems can be addressed simultaneously.
AACN Advanced Critical Care 10/2013; 24(4):389-404. DOI:10.1097/NCI.0b013e3182a8b516
Critical care medicine 02/2013; 41(2):657-8. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318277105e · 6.31 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.