Using nurses and office staff to report prescribing errors in primary care

Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, 371 Pearl Street, Burlington, VT 05401, USA.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.76). 08/2008; 20(4):238-45. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzn015
Source: PubMed


To implement a prescribing-error reporting system in primary care offices and analyze the reports.
Descriptive analysis of a voluntary prescribing-error-reporting system
Seven primary care offices in Vermont, USA.
One hundred and three prescribers, managers, nurses and office staff.
Nurses and office staff were asked to report all communications with community pharmacists regarding prescription problems.
All reports were classified by severity category, setting, error mode, prescription domain and error-producing conditions.
All practices submitted reports, although reporting decreased by 3.6 reports per month (95% CI, -2.7 to -4.4, P<0.001, by linear regression analysis). Two hundred and sixteen reports were submitted. Nearly 90% (142/165) of errors were severity Category B (errors that did not reach the patient) according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index for Categorizing Medication Errors. Nineteen errors reached the patient without causing harm (Category C); and 4 errors caused temporary harm requiring intervention (Category E). Errors involving strength were found in 30% of reports, including 23 prescriptions written for strengths not commercially available. Antidepressants, narcotics and antihypertensives were the most frequent drug classes reported. Participants completed an exit survey with a response rate of 84.5% (87/103). Nearly 90% (77/87) of respondents were willing to continue reporting after the study ended, however none of the participants currently submit reports.
Nurses and office staff are a valuable resource for reporting prescribing errors. However, without ongoing reminders, the reporting system is not sustainable.

Download full-text


Available from: Benjamin Littenberg, Oct 06, 2015
22 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incident reporting is commonly used to improve patient safety. The preanalytical phase of laboratory testing contains several manual error-prone tasks where mistakes can affect patient outcomes. However, the practical use of incident reports in this area has not been previously investigated in the primary health care setting, where the majority of the patients come in contact with health care. All staff responsible for venous blood sampling in 70 primary health care centres and in two hospital clinical laboratories (317 respondents, response rate 94%) completed a questionnaire. Of the primary health care staff, 69% reported that they had never filed an incident report regarding venous blood sampling. Barriers for not filing incident reports often/always included lack of time (44%) and a complicated reporting procedure (27%). A higher proportion of staff with re-education (43%) had filed at least one incident report as compared to those without re-education (20%, p < 0.001). No differences in incident reporting practices were found between primary health care and hospital clinical laboratory staff. The investigated incident reporting system is likely to underreport incidents in the preanalytical phase. Therefore, the ability to discover preventable system vulnerabilities needs refinement.
    Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation 11/2009; 69(7):731-5. DOI:10.3109/00365510903007018 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current EMR system benefits physicians by facilitating order entry and reducing errors. It can improve the safety and effectiveness of medical services, but cannot manage the whole medical process and the quality of medical services. In addition to physicians, EMR should be designed for all medical professionals because medical services cannot be accomplished by physicians alone, but also requires the involvement of other medical professionals. Therefore, we applied PDCA, the famous quality management cycle to design a comprehensive and coherent EMR system which can be used throughout the entire treatment process. EMR with the PDCA Cycle can record every order state and every treatment procedure in order to monitor the whole medical process. This extends the safety from planning the treatment to fulfilling it. By analyzing the records, doctors and hospital managers can perfect the medical process and improve healthcare quality. The EMR we designed with the PDCA Cycle provides a record entry interface for physicians and a worksheet interface for nurses and other professionals. Every treatment procedure and every change of orders or tasks will be fed back to medical professionals. So information generated from the beginning to the end of treatment will link with each other to avoid any information islands. Furthermore, the EMR can display the additional information intuitively and real-timely without increasing the burden of medical professionals' work.
    Journal of Medical Systems 09/2010; 36(3):1193-203. DOI:10.1007/s10916-010-9581-1 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more