Dataset Information

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Medication errors can occur at any of the three steps of the medication use process: prescribing, dispensing and administration. We aimed to determine the incidence, type and clinical importance of drug administration errors and to identify risk factors. METHODS: Prospective study based on disguised observation technique in four wards in a teaching hospital in Paris, France (800 beds). A pharmacist accompanied nurses and witnessed the preparation and administration of drugs to all patients during the three drug rounds on each of six days per ward. Main outcomes were number, type and clinical importance of errors and associated risk factors. Drug administration error rate was calculated with and without wrong time errors. Relationship between the occurrence of errors and potential risk factors were investigated using logistic regression models with random effects. RESULTS: Twenty-eight nurses caring for 108 patients were observed. Among 1501 opportunities for error, 415 administrations (430 errors) with one or more errors were detected (27.6%). There were 312 wrong time errors, ten simultaneously with another type of error, resulting in an error rate without wrong time error of 7.5% (113/1501). The most frequently administered drugs were the cardiovascular drugs (425/1501, 28.3%). The highest risks of error in a drug administration were for dermatological drugs. No potentially life-threatening errors were witnessed and 6% of errors were classified as having a serious or significant impact on patients (mainly omission). In multivariate analysis, the occurrence of errors was associated with drug administration route, drug classification (ATC) and the number of patient under the nurse's care. CONCLUSION: Medication administration errors are frequent. The identification of its determinants helps to undertake designed interventions.

SUBMITTER: Berdot S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3364158 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital.

Berdot Sarah S Sabatier Brigitte B Gillaizeau Florence F Caruba Thibaut T Prognon Patrice P Durieux Pierre P

BMC health services research 20120312

<h4>Background</h4>Medication errors can occur at any of the three steps of the medication use process: prescribing, dispensing and administration. We aimed to determine the incidence, type and clinical importance of drug administration errors and to identify risk factors.<h4>Methods</h4>Prospective study based on disguised observation technique in four wards in a teaching hospital in Paris, France (800 beds). A pharmacist accompanied nurses and witnessed the preparation and administration of dr ...[more]

PMID: 22409837

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDrug utilization evaluation (DUE) studies aim to survey the appropriateness of drug use. DUE is an executive approach used to improve the use of medications as well as reduce the cost of treatment, ensure drug adequacy, and improve patient safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pattern of erythropoietin use, according to standard guidelines, in patients admitted to Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran.MethodsIn this descriptive, retrospective study, 230 patients were assessed. All patients who were hospitalized in different wards of Namazi Hospital, affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and received at least three doses of erythropoietin from September 2019 to March 2020 participated in this study. The following standard indicators of erythropoietin use were evaluated through reviewing medical charts of the cohort: drug dose, dosing intervals, route of administration, indication, monitoring of laboratory parameters, drug dose adjustment based on the response rate as well as target hemoglobin ≥12 g/dl, attention to major drug interactions, and administration of injectable or oral iron supplementation during treatment.ResultsMost (65.2%) of the participants were male. The mean ± SD age of the patients was 47.55 ± 22.71 years. More than half (51.3%) of the included subjects were hospitalized in the nephrology ward. PDpoetin® and Cinnapoietin® were given to 52.6% and 47.4% of the study participants, respectively. Treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease was the most frequent indication of erythropoietin. The time interval of erythropoietin administration was three times a week for 68.3% of the patients. The most frequently administered weekly dose of erythropoietin was 12,000 units. The weekly dose, dose interval, and route of administration of erythropoietin were appropriate in 52.6%, 77.4%, and 100% of the patients, respectively. Dose adjustment based on the response rate, attention to major drug interactions as well as absolute-relative contraindications, and attention to the target hemoglobin ≥12 g/dl to decide whether or not to continue treatment were based on standard guideline in 98.1%, 98.7%, and 93% of the patients, respectively. The sum indexes of erythropoietin use were in line with standard guidelines in 75.84% of the cases.ConclusionAccording to our results, in the setting of erythropoietin use in hospitals, physicians need more attention and education in areas such as selecting the proper dose of medication, correct indication of the drug, temporal arrangement of monitoring laboratory items, and the patient's need for iron supplements.

Project description:IntroductionIn university hospital settings most prescriptions are written by junior doctors, who are more likely to make prescribing errors than experienced doctors. Prescribing errors can cause serious harm to patients and drug harm differs among low, middle and high-income countries. In Brazil, few studies have investigated the causes of these errors. Our aim was to explore medication prescribing errors in a teaching hospital, their causes, and underlying factors from the perspective of junior doctors.MethodQualitative, descriptive and exploratory study that used a semi-structured individual interview with questions related to the planning and execution of prescriptions. It was conducted with 34 junior doctors who graduated from twelve different universities located in six Brazilian states. The data were analyzed according to the Reason's Accident Causation model.ResultsAmong the 105 errors reported, medication omission stood out. Most errors resulted from unsafe acts during execution, followed by mistakes and violations. Many errors reached the patients; unsafe acts of rule violations and slips accounted for the majority. Work overload and time pressure were the most frequently reported causes. Difficulties faced by the National Health System and organizational problems were identified as latent conditions.ConclusionThe results reaffirm international findings about the severity of prescribing errors and the multifactorial aspect of their causes. Unlike other studies, we found a large number of violations, which, from the interviewees' perspectives, are related to socioeconomic and cultural patterns. The violations were not seen or mentioned by the interviewees as violations, but as difficulties in accomplishing their tasks on time. Knowing these patterns and perspectives is important for implementing strategies to improve the safety of both patients and professionals involved in the medication process. It is suggested that the exploitation culture of junior doctors' work be discouraged and that their training be improved and prioritized.

Project description:ObjectiveMedication administration errors (MAEs) are a common risk to patient safety in mental health hospitals, but an absence of in-depth studies to understand the underlying causes of these errors limits the development of effective remedial interventions. This study aimed to investigate the causes of MAEs affecting inpatients in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) hospital in the North West of England.MethodsRegistered and student mental health nurses working in inpatient psychiatric units were identified using a combination of direct advertisement and incident reports and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews utilising the critical incident technique. Interviews were designed to capture the participants' experiences of inpatient MAEs. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and subject to framework analysis to illuminate the underlying active failures, error/violation-provoking conditions and latent failures according to Reason's model of accident causation.ResultsA total of 20 participants described 26 MAEs (including 5 near misses) during the interviews. The majority of MAEs were skill-based slips and lapses (n = 16) or mistakes (n = 5), and were caused by a variety of interconnecting error/violation-provoking conditions relating to the patient, medicines used, medicines administration task, health care team, individual nurse and working environment. Some of these local conditions had origins in wider organisational latent failures. Recurrent and influential themes included inadequate staffing levels, unbalanced staff skill mix, interruptions/distractions, concerns with how the medicines administration task was approached and problems with communication.ConclusionsTo our knowledge this is the first published in-depth qualitative study to investigate the underlying causes of specific MAEs in a mental health hospital. Our findings revealed that MAEs may arise due to multiple interacting error and violation provoking conditions and latent 'system' failures, which emphasises the complexity of this everyday task facing practitioners in clinical practice. Future research should focus on developing and testing interventions which address key local and wider organisational 'systems' failures to reduce error.

Project description:Medication errors are common in hospitals. These errors can result in adverse drug events (ADEs), which can reduce the health and well-being of patients', and their relatives and caregivers. Interventions have been developed to reduce medication errors, including those that occur at the administration stage.ObjectiveWe aimed to elicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) values to prevent hospital medication administration errors.Design and settingAn online, contingent valuation (CV) survey was conducted, using the random card-sort elicitation method, to elicit WTP to prevent medication errors.ParticipantsA representative sample of the UK public.MethodsSeven medication error scenarios, varying in the potential for harm and the severity of harm, were valued. Scenarios were developed with input from: clinical experts, focus groups with members of the public and piloting. Mean and median WTP values were calculated, excluding protest responses or those that failed a logic test. A two-part model (logit, generalised linear model) regression analysis was conducted to explore predictive characteristics of WTP.ResultsResponses were collected from 1001 individuals. The proportion of respondents willing to pay to prevent a medication error increased as the severity of the ADE increased and was highest for scenarios that described actual harm occurring. Mean WTP across the scenarios ranged from £45 (95% CI £36 to £54) to £278 (95% CI £200 to £355). Several factors influenced both the value and likelihood of WTP, such as: income, known experience of medication errors, sex, field of work, marriage status, education level and employment status. Predictors of WTP were not, however, consistent across scenarios.ConclusionsThis CV study highlights how the UK public value preventing medication errors. The findings from this study could be used to carry out a cost-benefit analysis which could inform implementation decisions on the use of technology to reduce medication administration errors in UK hospitals.

Project description:BackgroundBlood cultures remain the gold standard for detecting bacteremia despite their limitations. The current practice of blood culture collection is still inefficient with low yields. Limited focus has been given to the association between timing of specimen collection at different time points during admission and their yield.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective observational study by analyzing all 3,890 sets of cultures collected from the 1,962 admitted patients over the seven-month period of this study. We compared the blood culture yield between the early group (≤24 hours after admission) and the late group (> 24 hours of admission). We also investigated the effect of prehospital oral antibiotics and pre-analytical time on the first cultures in the emergency department. Epidemiology and efficiency of blood cultures were studied for each medical specialty.ResultsIn total, 3,349(86.1%) blood cultures were negative and 541(13.9%) were positive for one or more microorganisms. After correcting for contamination, the overall yield was 290 (7.5%). The early group (n = 1,490) yielded significantly more true-positive cultures (10.1% versus 5.8%, P<0.001) than the late group (n = 2,400). The emergency department had a significantly higher yield than general wards, 11.2% versus 5.7% (p<0.001). Prehospital oral antibiotic use and pre-analytical time did not affect the yield of first cultures at the emergency department (p = 0.735 and 0.816 respectively). The number of tests needed to obtain one true-positive culture varied between departments, ranging from 7 to 45.ConclusionThis study showed that blood cultures are inefficient in detecting bacteremia. Cultures collected during 24 hours after admission yielded more positive results than those collected later. Significant variations in blood culture epidemiology and efficiency per specialty suggest that guidelines should be reevaluated. Future studies should aim at improving blood culture yield, implementing educational programs to reduce contamination and cost-effective application of modern molecular diagnostic technologies.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital.

Publications

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets