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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate registered nurses’ perceptions of the patient safety climate in intensive care units and to explore potential predictors for overall perception of safety and frequency of incident reporting.Research methodology/designA cross-sectional design was conducted, using the questionnaire Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, measuring 12 patient safety climate dimensions: seven at unit and three at hospital level, two outcomes and in addition two outcome items.SettingTen intensive care units (ICUs) in six hospitals in one hospital trust in Norway.ResultsIn total, 220 registered nurses (RNs) responded (72%). Seven of 12 dimensions achieved a RN proportion of positive scores over 55%. Five achieved a lower proportion. Significant differences in RNs’ perceptions of patient safety were found between types of units and between the four hospitals. The total variance in the outcome measure explained by the model as a whole was for the outcome dimensions “overall perception of safety” 32%, and “frequency of incident reporting” 32%. The variables at the unit level made a significant contribution to the outcome.ConclusionRNs in ICU are most positive to patient safety climate at unit level, hence improvements are needed concerning incident reporting, feedback and communication about errors and organisational learning and continuous improvement.
    Intensive and Critical Care Nursing 12/2012; 28(6):344-354. DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2012.01.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. This study aims to develop a viewpoint list for the analysis of medication incidents since it is important for hospitals to tackle malpractice in order to deliver safe medical services. Incident reports were collected to achieve this goal. However, the number of accidents is not decreasing. In particular, medical incidents caused when nurses administer medication by injection or internally occur in many hospitals. Methodology/approach. A total of 513 incidents are analysed with the medication model to develop a viewpoint list to it make easier to extract direct error factors to develop countermeasures with questions. Each incident is stratified with the pattern described with the medication model. It was applied with 20 incidents to verify the effect. Findings. This method using the medication model and viewpoint list could detect error factors effectively. Research limitations/implications. The implementation of the revised viewpoint list to ward nurses is necessary since 20 incidents to verify the effect of the viewpoint list were analysed by the authors.
    Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 08/2013; 24(7-8):859-868. DOI:10.1080/14783363.2013.791116 · 0.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The acronym LASA (look-alike sound-alike) denotes the problem of confusing similar- looking and/or sounding drugs accidentally. The most common causes of medication error jeopardizing patient safety are LASA as well as high workload. A critical incident report of medication errors of opioids for postoperative analgesia by look-alike packaging highlights the LASA aspects in everyday scenarios. A change to a generic brand of medication saved costs of up to 16% per annum. Consequently, confusion of medication incidents occurred due to the similar appearance of the newly introduced generic opioid. Due to consecutive underdosing no life-threatening situation arose out of this LASA based medication error. Current recommendations for the prevention of LASA are quite extensive; still, in a system with a lump sum payment per case not all of these security measures may be feasible. This issue remains to be approached on an individual basis, taking into consideration local set ups as well as financial issues.
    Patient Safety in Surgery 03/2015; 9:12. DOI:10.1186/s13037-014-0047-0

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014