Medication Errors Involving Oral Chemotherapy

College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.89). 05/2010; 116(10):2455 - 2464. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25027


Given the expanding use of oral chemotherapies, the authors set out to examine errors in the prescribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring of these drugs.
Reports were collected of oral chemotherapy-associated medication errors from a medical literature and Internet search and review of reports to the Medication Errors Reporting Program and MEDMARX. The authors solicited incident reports from 14 comprehensive cancer centers, and also collected incident reports, pharmacy interventions, and prompted clinician reports from their own center. They classified the type of incident, severity, stage in the medication use process, and type of medication error. They examined the yield of the various reporting methods to identify oral chemotherapy-related medication errors.
The authors identified 99 adverse drug events, 322 near misses, and 87 medical errors with low risk of harm. Of the 99 adverse drug events, 20 were serious or life-threatening, 52 were significant, and 25 were minor. The most common medication errors involved wrong dose (38.8%), wrong drug (13.6%), wrong number of days supplied (11.0%), and missed dose (10.0%). The majority of errors resulted in a near miss; however, 39.3% of reports involving the wrong number of days supplied resulted in adverse drug events. Incidents derived from the literature search and hospital incident reporting system included a larger percentage of adverse drug events (73.1% and 58.8%, respectively) compared with other sources.
Ensuring oral chemotherapy safety requires improvements in the way these drugs are ordered, dispensed, administered, and monitored. Cancer 2010.

Download full-text


Available from: Anne H Gross, Oct 09, 2014
  • Source
    • "These data are collected and entered locally via the Internet by the facility's staff and then transmitted to the MEDMARX system's database for review by USP and the facility submitting the data. The results of MEDMARX have been validated and used in dozens of publications (Rinke et al., 2010; Schein, Hicks, Nelson, Sikirica, & Doyle, 2009; Stavroudis et al., 2009; Weingart et al., 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of temporary staff in healthcare is on the rise due in part to work-force shortages and perceived cost savings. They may present an increased risk of errors from insufficient training and orientation, and less familiarity with local culture and practice. However, their impact, particularly in the emergency department where the risk of preventable medication errors is high, has not been established. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether temporary staff medication errors would be associated with more severe harm than permanent staff medication errors. We used a national Internet-based medication error reporting system (MEDMARX) and did a cross-sectional study of the dataset between the years 2000 and 2005. After adjusting for clustering by facility, temporary staff errors were more likely than permanent staff errors to reach the patient (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.97-2.09), require patient monitoring (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.21-3.03), result in temporary harm (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.13-8.59), and be life-threatening (OR 8.63, 95% CI 1.22-61.0). In conclusion, emergency department medication errors associated with temporary staff were more harmful than those associated with permanent staff.
    Preview · Article · Jul 2011 · Journal for Healthcare Quality
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oral chemotherapies represent an emerging risk area in ambulatory oncology practice. To examine the hazards associated with five oral chemotherapies, we performed a proactive risk assessment. WE CONVENED INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS AND CONDUCTED FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSES (FMEAS) FOR FIVE ORAL CHEMOTHERAPY AGENTS: capecitabine, imatinib, temozolomide, 6-mercaptopurine, and an investigational agent. This involved the creation of process maps for each medication, identification of failure modes, selection of high-risk failure modes, and development of recommendations to mitigate these risks. We analyzed the number of steps and types of failure modes and compared this information across the study drugs. Key vulnerabilities include patient education about drug handling and adverse effects, prescription writing, patient self-administration and medication adherence, and failure to monitor and manage toxicities. Many of these failure modes were common across the five oral chemotherapies, suggesting the presence of common targets for improvement. Streamlining the FMEA itself may promote the dissemination of this method. Each stage of the medication process poses risks to the safe use of oral chemotherapies. FMEAs may identify opportunities to improve medication safety and reduce the risk of patient harm.
    Preview · Article · Jan 2011 · Journal of Oncology Practice
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with cancer are at risk of injury during treatment. Some injuries are preventable, but prevention requires knowledge about the hazards. Aims To identify hazards and injuries relating to Danish patients with cancer (types and severity) and to test three different methods of identifying cancer-specific hazards. Adverse events in cancer care were identified through reports from healthcare staff to the Danish Patient Safety Database, a retrospective chart review using the Global Trigger Tool, and reports to the Danish Cancer Society from patients with cancer and their relatives. Events were typed using the draft International Classification for Patient Safety. Severity was assessed by Safety Assessment Coding, the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) and qualitative assessment. 2429 cancer-related adverse event reports were found on the Danish Patient Safety Database, 260 adverse events were identified using the Global Trigger Tool, and 151 safety events were reported by patients and their relatives. Cancer-specific adverse events and general safety problems were identified. In most cases injury to patients was temporary but severe and permanent injury occurred with a relatively high frequency. Patients with cancer are at risk of injury from cancer treatment procedures and as a consequence of problems related to administrative processes and communication. Types of identified events varied according to the methods used, and each method added new information. Further research on patient safety in cancer care and safety-enhancing activities is needed.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2011 · BMJ quality & safety
Show more