Automated Dose-Rounding Recommendations for Pediatric Medications

Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.3). 08/2011; 128(2):e422-8. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-0760
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although pediatric electronic prescribing systems are increasingly being used in pediatric care, many of these systems lack the clinical decision-support infrastructure needed to calculate a safe and effective rounded medication dose. This infrastructure is required to facilitate tailoring of established dosing guidance while maintaining the medication's therapeutic intent.
The goal of this project was to establish best practices for generating an appropriate medication dose and to create an interoperable rounding knowledge base combining best practices and dose-rounding information.
We interviewed 19 pediatric health care and pediatric pharmacy experts and conducted a literature review. After using these data to construct initial rounding tolerances, we used a Delphi process to achieve consensus about the rounding tolerance for each commonly prescribed medication.
Three categories for medication-rounding philosophy emerged from our literature review: (1) medications for which rounding is used judiciously to retain the intended effect; (2) medications that are rounded with attention to potential unintended effects; and (3) medications that are rarely rounded because of the potential for toxicity. We assigned a small subset of medications to a fourth category-inadequate data-for which there was insufficient information to provide rounding recommendations. For all 102 medications, we were able to arrive at a consensus recommendation for rounding a given calculated dose.
Results of this study provide the pediatric information technology community with a primary set of recommended rounding tolerances for commonly prescribed drugs. The interoperable knowledge base developed here can be integrated with existing and developing electronic prescribing systems, potentially improving prescribing safety and reducing cognitive workload.


Available from: Stephen Andrew Spooner, May 27, 2014
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy medication errors occur in all cancer treatment programs. Such errors have potential severe consequences: either enhanced toxicity or impaired disease control. Understanding and limiting chemotherapy errors are imperative. PROCEDURE: A multi-disciplinary team developed and implemented a prospective pharmacy surveillance system of chemotherapy prescribing and administration errors from 2008 to 2011 at a Children's Oncology Group-affiliated, pediatric cancer treatment program. Every chemotherapy order was prospectively reviewed for errors at the time of order submission. All chemotherapy errors were graded using standard error severity codes. Error rates were calculated by number of patient encounters and chemotherapy doses dispensed. Process improvement was utilized to develop techniques to minimize errors with a goal of zero errors reaching the patient. RESULTS: Over the duration of the study, more than 20,000 chemotherapy orders were reviewed. Error rates were low (6/1,000 patient encounters and 3.9/1,000 medications dispensed) at the start of the project and reduced by 50% to 3/1,000 patient encounters and 1.8/1,000 medications dispensed during the initiative. Error types included chemotherapy dosing or prescribing errors (42% of errors), treatment roadmap errors (26%), supportive care errors (15%), timing errors (12%), and pharmacy dispensing errors (4%). Ninety-two percent of errors were intercepted before reaching the patient. No error caused identified patient harm. Efforts to lower rates were successful but have not succeeded in preventing all errors. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy medication errors are possibly unavoidable, but can be minimized by thoughtful, multispecialty review of current policies and procedures. Pediatr Blood Cancer © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Pediatric Blood & Cancer 08/2013; 60(8). DOI:10.1002/pbc.24514 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the frequency of birth weight digit preference for infants admitted to a large neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the scale of rounding and its dependence on birth weight, and time and the impact on prescribing accuracy. A consecutive cohort of birth weights extracted retrospectively from a single clinical database. Birth weights from 9170 inborn infants recorded on an electronic prescribing database admitted to NICU over 20 years. Data are presented for the frequency of each of the possible pairs of final digits. A statistical model of digit preference assuming rounding is used to quantify the proportions rounding to specific accuracy levels. These proportions are compared between those <1000 g and those above and over the 20-year time period. From a population of 9170 infants admitted over 20 years, there was a highly statistically significant digit bias with an increased prevalence of multiples of 100 (p<0.0001), 50 (p=0.007), 20 (p<0.0001), 10 (p<0.0001), 5 (p<0.0001) and 2 (p=0.0005). There was clear evidence of a reduced 100 g digit bias for infants 500 and 1000 g (0%) compared with those between 1000 and 4500 g (3.7%). The maximum birth weight error due to digit bias for all infants was 5%. There was clear evidence of an improvement in accuracy over 20 years. Digit bias in birth weights over 20 years in a tertiary NICU is highly significant at the 100, 50, 20, 10, 5 and 2-digit levels. There has been a substantial improvement in the accuracy of birth weight measurements over 20 years. The likely maximum error due to birth weight digit bias is 5% and is within an acceptable tolerance for drug dosing even at very low birth weights.
    BMJ Open 12/2013; 3(12):e003650. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003650 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To establish standardized, rounded doses of medications for neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) through a multi-institutional peer-reviewed process.
    04/2014; 19(2):118-26. DOI:10.5863/1551-6776-19.2.118