Errors in administration of parenteral drugs in intensive care units: multinational prospective study

Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
BMJ (online) (Impact Factor: 16.38). 02/2009; 338(mar12 1):b814. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b814
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess on a multinational level the frequency, characteristics, contributing factors, and preventive measures of administration errors in parenteral medication in intensive care units.
Observational, prospective, 24 hour cross sectional study with self reporting by staff.
113 intensive care units in 27 countries.
1328 adults in intensive care.
Number of errors; impact of errors; distribution of error characteristics; distribution of contributing and preventive factors.
861 errors affecting 441 patients were reported: 74.5 (95% confidence interval 69.5 to 79.4) events per 100 patient days. Three quarters of the errors were classified as errors of omission. Twelve patients (0.9% of the study population) experienced permanent harm or died because of medication errors at the administration stage. In a multiple logistic regression with patients as the unit of analysis, odds ratios for the occurrence of at least one parenteral medication error were raised for number of organ failures (odds ratio per increase of one organ failure: 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.34); use of any intravenous medication (yes v no: 2.73, 1.39 to 5.36); number of parenteral administrations (per increase of one parenteral administration: 1.06, 1.04 to 1.08); typical interventions in patients in intensive care (yes v no: 1.50, 1.14 to 1.96); larger intensive care unit (per increase of one bed: 1.01, 1.00 to 1.02); number of patients per nurse (per increase of one patient: 1.30, 1.03 to 1.64); and occupancy rate (per 10% increase: 1.03, 1.00 to 1.05). Odds ratios for the occurrence of parenteral medication errors were decreased for presence of basic monitoring (yes v no: 0.19, 0.07 to 0.49); an existing critical incident reporting system (yes v no: 0.69, 0.53 to 0.90); an established routine of checks at nurses' shift change (yes v no: 0.68, 0.52 to 0.90); and an increased ratio of patient turnover to the size of the unit (per increase of one patient: 0.73, 0.57 to 0.93).
Parenteral medication errors at the administration stage are common and a serious safety problem in intensive care units. With the increasing complexity of care in critically ill patients, organisational factors such as error reporting systems and routine checks can reduce the risk for such errors.


Available from: Rui Moreno, Jun 09, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication administration omissions (MAO) are usually considered medication errors but not all MAO are clinically relevant. We determined the frequency of clinically relevant MAO of antimicrobial drugs in adult hospitals in Calgary, Alberta, Canada based on electronic medication administration record (eMAR). We examined 2011 data from eMAR records on medical wards and developed a reproducible assessment scheme to categorize and determine clinical relevance of MAO. We applied this scheme to records from 2012 in a retrospective cohort study to quantify clinically relevant MAO. Significant predictors of clinically relevant MAO were identified. A total of 294,718 dose records were assessed of which 10,282 (3.49%) were for doses not administered. Among these 4903 (1.66% of total); 47.68% of MAO were considered clinically relevant. Significant positive predictors of clinically relevant MAO included inhaled (OR 4.90, 95% CI 3.54-6.94) and liquid oral (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.47) route of medication compared to solid oral and irregular dose schedules. Evening nursing shift compared to night shift (OR 0.77 95% CI 0.70-0.85) and parenteral (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.54) were negative predictors, The commonest reasons for relevant MAO were patient preference, unspecified reason, administration access issues, drug not available or patient condition. Assessment of MAO by review of computer records provides a greater scope and sample size than directly observed medication administration assessments without "observer" effect. We found that MAO of antimicrobials in inpatients were uncommon but were seen more frequently with orally administered antimicrobials which may have significance to antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.
    PLoS ONE 04/2015; 10(4):e0122422. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122422 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Preventing intravenous (IV) preparation errors will improve patient safety and reduce costs by an unknown amount. Objective: To estimate the financial benefit of robotic preparation of sterile medication doses compared to traditional manual preparation techniques. Methods: A probability pathway model based on published rates of errors in the preparation of sterile doses of medications was developed. Literature reports of adverse events were used to project the array of medical outcomes that might result from these errors. These parameters were used as inputs to a customized simulation model that generated a distribution of possible outcomes, their probability, and associated costs. Results: By varying the important parameters across ranges found in published studies, the simulation model produced a range of outcomes for all likely possibilities. Thus it provided a reliable projection of the errors avoided and the cost savings of an automated sterile preparation technology. The average of 1,000 simulations resulted in the prevention of 5,420 medication errors and associated savings of $288,350 per year. The simulation results can be narrowed to specifi c scenarios by fixing model parameters that are known and allowing the unknown parameters to range across values found in previously published studies. Conclusions: The use of a robotic device can reduce health care costs by preventing errors that can cause adverse drug events.
    Hospital pharmacy 09/2014; 49(8):731-39. DOI:10.1310/hpj4808-731
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication errors have long been considered critical in global health care systems. However, few studies have been conducted to explore the effects of nursing unit structure on medication errors. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine the effects of structural factors on medication errors in nursing units. A total of 977 staff nurses and 62 head nurses participated in this cross-sectional design study. The findings show that professional autonomy (β = .53, t = 6.03, p < .01), technology (β = .25, t = 3.02, p < .01), and nursing experts (β = .52, t = 5.99, p < .01) are predictors of medication error rates. This study shows that the structural factors influence medication administration and the mechanistic approach is specifically in relation of low medication error rates. The author suggests that head nurses should consider strategies that require adjustments to unit control mechanisms.
    Western Journal of Nursing Research 12/2013; 37(3). DOI:10.1177/0193945913513849 · 1.38 Impact Factor