Article

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: 6.15). 12/2012; 41(2). DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318274156a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
93 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication errors may occur during prescribing, transcribing, prescription auditing, preparing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring. Medication administration errors (MAEs) are those that actually reach patients and remain a threat to patient safety. The Joint Commission International (JCI) advocates medication error prevention, but experience in reducing MAEs during the period of before and after JCI accreditation has not been reported. An intervention study, aimed at reducing MAEs in hospitalized patients, was performed in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China, during the journey to JCI accreditation and in the post-JCI accreditation era (first half-year of 2011 to first half-year of 2014). Comprehensive interventions included organizational, information technology, educational, and process optimization-based measures. Data mining was performed on MAEs derived from a compulsory electronic reporting system. The number of MAEs continuously decreased from 143 (first half-year of 2012) to 64 (first half-year of 2014), with a decrease in occurrence rate by 60.9% (0.338% versus 0.132%, P<0.05). The number of MAEs related to high-alert medications decreased from 32 (the second half-year of 2011) to 16 (the first half-year of 2014), with a decrease in occurrence rate by 57.9% (0.0787% versus 0.0331%, P<0.05). Omission was the top type of MAE during the first half-year of 2011 to the first half-year of 2014, with a decrease by 50% (40 cases versus 20 cases). Intravenous administration error was the top type of error regarding administration route, but it continuously decreased from 64 (first half-year of 2012) to 27 (first half-year of 2014). More experienced registered nurses made fewer medication errors. The number of MAEs in surgical wards was twice that in medicinal wards. Compared with non-intensive care units, the intensive care units exhibited higher occurrence rates of MAEs (1.81% versus 0.24%, P<0.001). A 3-and-a-half-year intervention program on MAEs was confirmed to be effective. MAEs made by nursing staff can be reduced, but cannot be eliminated. The depth, breadth, and efficiency of multidiscipline collaboration among physicians, pharmacists, nurses, information engineers, and hospital administrators are pivotal to safety in medication administration. JCI accreditation may help health systems enhance the awareness and ability to prevent MAEs and achieve successful quality improvements.
    Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 11:393-406. DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S79238 · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to present a comprehensive and valid estimate of the problems that arise in the medication process in hospitals. Specifically the study aims to examine medication-related adverse outcomes and contributing factors of hospital patients, to study the associations between adverse outcomes and contributing factors, and to compare differences between the detection methods. This study was conducted in one university hospital in Finland. Three types of data sets were analysed statistically including retrospectively collected medication-related incident reports (n=671) from the year 2010, retrospectively collected randomly selected patients’ records (n=463) from the year 2011 using the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) method, and observations (n=1058) of medication administrations by nurses’ with record reviews (n=122) during April to May 2012. In addition, secondary analysis of medication administration errors (n=453) detected by three methods was conducted. A total of (n=1059) medication errors and (n=311) adverse drug events were detected. Harm to patients was caused in 48% of detected medication errors in GTT data, 18% in incident reports, and 3% in observational data. Most of the detected errors were administration or documenting errors. The most common types of medication errors were wrong dose, omission, and wrong administration technique. There were differences between the detection methods when the information of the medication errors stages, types, and severities were compared. The most important work environmental factors contributing to errors were rush, lack of training, problems in the communication systems, in the electronic records, or in the common policies and procedures. Omission of double-checking, problems in communication and flow of information were the most common among the team factors contributing to errors. Of the employee-related factors performance deficit, stress/high volume workload, miscalculation of dosage or infusion rate, and knowledge deficit were the most common. The most important patient-specific factors were the amount of drugs, length of hospital stay, coronary artery disease, and co-morbidity. The most common drug-related factors contributing to errors were other than p.o administration and specific drugs. This study demonstrated that medication-related adverse outcomes are common and incident reports, GTT, and observation methods produce different information about the problems in the medication process. Understanding the complex reality of the hospital environment and the medication process can be limited by using only one detection method, because each detection methods had its limitations. Thus, combining the methods revealed more diverse information regarding medication-related problems in hospital that can be used to increase safety in the medication process.
    12/2014; , ISBN: 978-952-61-1636-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To reduce the rate of harmful adverse drug events (ADEs) of severity level D-I from a baseline peak of 0.24 ADE/1000 doses to 0.08 ADE/1000 doses. Study design A hospital-wide, quasi-experimental time series quality improvement (QI) initiative to reduce ADEs was implemented. High-reliability concepts, microsystem-based multidisciplinary teams, and QI science methods were used. ADEs were detected through a combination of voluntary reporting, trigger tool analysis, reversal agent review, and pharmacy interventions. A multidisciplinary ADE Quality Collaborative focused on medication use processes, not on specific classes of medications. Effective interventions included huddles and an ADE prevention bundle. Results The rate of harmful ADEs initially increased by >65% because of increased error reporting, temporally associated with the implementation of a program focused on high reliability and an improved safety culture. The quarterly rate was 0.17 ADE/1000 dispensed doses in Q1 2010. By the end of Q2 2013, the rate had decreased by 76.5%, to 0.04 ADE/1000 dispensed doses (P < .001). Conclusion Using an internal collaborative model and QI methodologies focused on medication use processes, harmful ADEs were reduced hospital-wide by 76.5%. The concurrent implementation of a high-reliability, safety-focused program was important as well.
    Journal of Pediatrics 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.08.063 · 3.74 Impact Factor