Article

Prevalence of medication administration errors in two medical units with automated prescription and dispensing

Department of Pharmacy, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Impact Factor: 3.93). 09/2011; 19(1):72-8. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000332
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify the frequency of medication administration errors and their potential risk factors in units using a computerized prescription order entry program and profiled automated dispensing cabinets.
Prospective observational study conducted within two clinical units of the Gastroenterology Department in a 1537-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Madrid (Spain).
Medication errors were measured using the disguised observation technique. Types of medication errors and their potential severity were described. The correlation between potential risk factors and medication errors was studied to identify potential causes.
In total, 2314 medication administrations to 73 patients were observed: 509 errors were recorded (22.0%)-68 (13.4%) in preparation and 441 (86.6%) in administration. The most frequent errors were use of wrong administration techniques (especially concerning food intake (13.9%)), wrong reconstitution/dilution (1.7%), omission (1.4%), and wrong infusion speed (1.2%). Errors were classified as no damage (95.7%), no damage but monitoring required (2.3%), and temporary damage (0.4%). Potential clinical severity could not be assessed in 1.6% of cases. The potential risk factors morning shift, evening shift, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical medication class antacids, prokinetics, antibiotics and immunosuppressants, oral administration, and intravenous administration were associated with a higher risk of administration errors. No association was found with variables related to understaffing or nurse's experience.
Medication administration errors persist in units with automated prescription and dispensing. We identified a need to improve nurses' working procedures and to implement a Clinical Decision Support tool that generates recommendations about scheduling according to dietary restrictions, preparation of medication before parenteral administration, and adequate infusion rates.

0 Followers
 · 
146 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The omission of charted (prescribed) doses for hospitalized patients is an important problem in the UK. Inappropriate drug omission can clearly lead to harm from lack of therapeutic effect. However, healthcare professionals administering medicines may decide that omission of a dose is appropriate in certain circumstances, e.g. when patients show signs of a possible adverse drug reaction (ADR). Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize dose omissions to understand the factors that influence non-administration of therapy and to determine the proportion of doses that are appropriately omitted due to ADRs. Methods: We used data from a bespoke hospital-wide electronic prescribing and administration system at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. We extracted data on 6.01 million drug ad-ministrations during 2010 and then randomly selected four 7-day periods, concentrating on doses that were charted but not given. Omitted medicines were counted if either there was a charted ‘non-administration’ (i.e. an active acknowledgement of the omitted dose) or there was no charting of that dose (i.e. no record of either administration or omission). Paused medicines were not counted. When a dose was omitted, staff indicated the reasons for non-administration using codes (‘hard coded’) or free text in the electronic system. We used both to compare the contribution of different factors, including ADRs, to the total rates of dose omissions. Results: In the four 7-day periods analysed, 60 763 (12.4%) of the 491 894 charted doses were omitted. The most common code was ‘patient refused drug’ (45.4%). Only 1.6% of doses were omitted for reasons of patient safety, of which 4 in 1000 omissions were coded as directly due to an ADR. Conclusions: Measures to improve the quality of care should seek to reduce dose omissions, but in some cases omission may be rational. Electronic medication administration records allow for detailed analysis of decisions made by healthcare professionals at the point of administration. While dose omissions related to ADRs are uncommon, they are important both for patient safety and for therapeutic decision making.
    Drug Safety 08/2012; 35(8). DOI:10.1007/BF03261964 · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the next 10 years, more information and communication technology (ICT) will be deployed in the health system than in its entire previous history. Systems will be larger in scope, more complex, and move from regional to national and supranational scale. Yet we are at roughly the same place the aviation industry was in the 1950s with respect to system safety. Even if ICT harm rates do not increase, increased ICT use will increase the absolute number of ICT related harms. Factors that could diminish ICT harm include adoption of common standards, technology maturity, better system development, testing, implementation and end user training. Factors that will increase harm rates include complexity and heterogeneity of systems and their interfaces, rapid implementation and poor training of users. Mitigating these harms will not be easy, as organizational inertia is likely to generate a hysteresis-like lag, where the paths to increase and decrease harm are not identical.
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11/2011; 19(1):2-5. DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000674 · 3.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The omission of charted (prescribed) doses for hospitalized patients is an important problem in the UK. Inappropriate drug omission can clearly lead to harm from lack of therapeutic effect. However, healthcare professionals administering medicines may decide that omission of a dose is appropriate in certain circumstances, e.g. when patients show signs of a possible adverse drug reaction (ADR). The aim of this study was to characterize dose omissions to understand the factors that influence non-administration of therapy and to determine the proportion of doses that are appropriately omitted due to ADRs. We used data from a bespoke hospital-wide electronic prescribing and administration system at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. We extracted data on 6.01 million drug administrations during 2010 and then randomly selected four 7-day periods, concentrating on doses that were charted but not given. Omitted medicines were counted if either there was a charted 'non-administration' (i.e. an active acknowledgement of the omitted dose) or there was no charting of that dose (i.e. no record of either administration or omission). Paused medicines were not counted. When a dose was omitted, staff indicated the reasons for non-administration using codes ('hard coded') or free text in the electronic system. We used both to compare the contribution of different factors, including ADRs, to the total rates of dose omissions. In the four 7-day periods analysed, 60 763 (12.4%) of the 491 894 charted doses were omitted. The most common code was 'patient refused drug' (45.4%). Only 1.6% of doses were omitted for reasons of patient safety, of which 4 in 1000 omissions were coded as directly due to an ADR. Measures to improve the quality of care should seek to reduce dose omissions, but in some cases omission may be rational. Electronic medication administration records allow for detailed analysis of decisions made by healthcare professionals at the point of administration. While dose omissions related to ADRs are uncommon, they are important both for patient safety and for therapeutic decision making.
    Drug Safety 06/2012; 35(8):677-83. DOI:10.2165/11630750-000000000-00000 · 2.62 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from