Dataset Information

Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prescribing errors are common. It has been suggested that the severity as well as the frequency of errors should be assessed when measuring prescribing error rates. This would provide more clinically relevant information, and allow more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce errors.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to describe the tools used to assess prescribing error severity in studies reporting hospital prescribing error rates.

Data sources

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL (January 1985-January 2013).

Study selection

We included studies that reported the detection and rate of prescribing errors in prescriptions for adult and/or pediatric hospital inpatients, or elaborated on the properties of severity assessment tools used by these studies. Studies not published in English, or that evaluated errors for only one disease or drug class, one route of administration, or one type of prescribing error, were excluded, as were letters and conference abstracts. One reviewer screened all abstracts and obtained complete articles. A second reviewer assessed 10 % of all abstracts and complete articles to check reliability of the screening process.

Appraisal

Tools were appraised for country and method of development, whether the tool assessed actual or potential harm, levels of severity assessed, and results of any validity and reliability studies.

Results

Fifty-seven percent of 107 studies measuring prescribing error rates included an assessment of severity. Forty tools were identified that assessed severity, only two of which had acceptable reliability and validity. In general, little information was given on the method of development or ease of use of the tools, although one tool required four reviewers and was thus potentially time consuming.

Limitations

The review was limited to studies written in English. One of the review authors was also the author of one of the tools, giving a potential source of bias.

Conclusion

A wide range of severity assessment tools are used in the literature. Developing a basis of comparison between tools would potentially be helpful in comparing findings across studies. There is a potential need to establish a less time-consuming method of measuring severity of prescribing error, with acceptable international reliability and validity.

SUBMITTER: Garfield S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3834169 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review.

Garfield Sara S Reynolds Matthew M Dermont Liesbeth L Franklin Bryony Dean BD

Drug safety 20131201 12

<h4>Background</h4>Prescribing errors are common. It has been suggested that the severity as well as the frequency of errors should be assessed when measuring prescribing error rates. This would provide more clinically relevant information, and allow more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce errors.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this systematic review was to describe the tools used to assess prescribing error severity in studies reporting hospital pres ...[more]

PMID: 23955385

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives(1) Systematically assemble, analyse and synthesise published evidence on causes of prescribing error in children. (2) Present results to a multidisciplinary group of paediatric prescribing stakeholders to validate findings and establish how causative factors lead to errors in practice.DesignScoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, including stakeholder consultation; qualitative evidence synthesis.MethodsWe followed the six scoping review stages. (1) Research question-the research question was 'What is known about causes of prescribing error in children?' (2) Search strategy-we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (from inception to February 2018), grey literature and reference lists of included studies. (3) Article selection-all published evidence contributing information on the causes of prescribing error in children was eligible for inclusion. We included review articles as secondary evidence to broaden understanding. (4) Charting data-results were collated in a custom data charting form. (5) Reporting results-we summarised article characteristics, extracted causal evidence and thematically synthesised findings. (6) Stakeholder consultation-results were presented to a multidisciplinary focus group of six prescribing stakeholders to establish validity, relevance and mechanisms by which causes lead to errors in practice.Results68 articles were included. We identified six main causes of prescribing errors: children's fundamental differences led to individualised dosing and calculations; off-licence prescribing; medication formulations; communication with children; and experience working with children. Primary evidence clarifying causes was lacking.ConclusionsSpecific factors complicate prescribing for children and increase risk of errors. Primary research is needed to confirm and elaborate these causes of error. In the meantime, this review uses existing evidence to make provisional paediatric-specific recommendations for policy, practice and education.

Project description:Background: Health information technology (HIT) is known to reduce prescribing errors but may also cause new types of technology-generated errors (TGE) related to data entry, duplicate prescribing, and prescriber alert fatigue. It is unclear which component behaviour change techniques (BCTs) contribute to the effectiveness of prescribing HIT implementations and optimisation. This study aimed to (i) quantitatively assess the HIT that reduces prescribing errors in hospitals and (ii) identify the BCTs associated with effective interventions.Methods: Articles were identified using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science to May 2020. Eligible studies compared prescribing HIT with paper-order entry and examined prescribing error rates. Studies were excluded if prescribing error rates could not be extracted, if HIT use was non-compulsory or designed for one class of medication. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated across the studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise effect estimates. Two researchers examined studies for BCTs using a validated taxonomy. Effectiveness ratios (ER) were used to determine the potential impact of individual BCTs.Results: Thirty-five studies of variable risk of bias and limited intervention reporting were included. TGE were identified in 31 studies. Compared with paper-order entry, prescribing HIT of varying sophistication was associated with decreased rates of prescribing errors (median OR 0.24, IQR 0.03-0.57). Ten BCTs were present in at least two successful interventions and may be effective components of prescribing HIT implementation and optimisation including prescriber involvement in system design, clinical colleagues as trainers, modification of HIT in response to feedback, direct observation of prescriber workflow, monitoring of electronic orders to detect errors, and system alerts that prompt the prescriber.Conclusions: Prescribing HIT is associated with a reduction in prescribing errors in a variety of hospital settings. Poor reporting of intervention delivery and content limited the BCT analysis. More detailed reporting may have identified additional effective intervention components. Effective BCTs may be considered in the design and development of prescribing HIT and in the reporting and evaluation of future studies in this area.

Project description:ObjectivesKatakori is a Japanese term for non-specific symptoms including discomfort or dull pain caused by muscle stiffness around the neck through the shoulders and is one of the most frequently reported symptoms in Japan. However, there has been no standardized patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate Katakori severity. This study aimed to investigate the reporting level on validity and reliability of patient-reported outcome measures of Katakori severity.MethodA systematic search in ICHUSHI, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed was undertaken from inception to April 2017 without language limitations. Two authors independently undertook screening by inspecting the title and abstract. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) participants with Katakori symptoms, (2) reporting reliability or validity of questionnaire evaluating Katakori severity and (3) published journal articles. Studies that either of the authors retained through the screening process were inspected with full text by the two authors independently to examine eligibility of the study. Any disagreement on eligibility after full-text inspection was resolved by discussion between them. Methodological quality was rated with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Subsequently, the evidence level of each measurement property was assessed for each questionnaire. The two authors extracted data independently. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion between them.ResultsFive questionnaires were identified in five studies. The Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and Scale for Measuring Felt Shoulder Stiffness had the highest level of methodological quality. However, excellent measurement properties were found in only two out of nine criteria. Furthermore, in particular, content validity was not investigated in any measure.ConclusionThere is preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and Scale for Measuring Felt Shoulder Stiffness; however, much further research is required. Identifying or developing a patient-reported outcome measure with content validity would be a future research agenda.

Project description:BackgroundInborn errors of immunity (IEIs) are considered significant challenges for children with IEIs, their families, and their medical providers. Infections are the most common complication of IEIs and children can acquire coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) even when protective measures are taken.ObjectivesTo estimate the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in children with IEIs and analyse the demographic parameters, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in children with IEIs with COVID-19 illness.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched ProQuest, Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for studies on the development of COVID-19 in children with IEIs, published from December 1, 2019 to February 28, 2023, with English language restriction.ResultsOf the 1095 papers that were identified, 116 articles were included in the systematic review (73 case report, 38 cohort 4 case-series and 1 case-control studies). Studies involving 710 children with IEIs with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. Among all 710 IEIs pediatric cases who acquired SARS-CoV-2, some children were documented to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 119, 16.8%), intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation (n = 87, 12.2%), suffered acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 98, 13.8%) or died (n = 60, 8.4%). Overall, COVID-19 in children with different IEIs patents resulted in no or low severity of disease in more than 76% of all included cases (COVID-19 severity: asymptomatic = 105, mild = 351, or moderate = 88). The majority of children with IEIs received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 579, 81.5%). Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) due to COVID-19 in children with IEIs occurred in 103 (14.5%). Fatality in children with IEIs with COVID-19 was reported in any of the included IEIs categories for cellular and humoral immunodeficiencies (n = 19, 18.6%), immune dysregulatory diseases (n = 17, 17.9%), innate immunodeficiencies (n = 5, 10%), bone marrow failure (n = 1, 14.3%), complement deficiencies (n = 1, 9.1%), combined immunodeficiencies with associated or syndromic features (n = 7, 5.5%), phagocytic diseases (n = 3, 5.5%), autoinflammatory diseases (n = 2, 3%) and predominantly antibody deficiencies (n = 5, 2.5%). Mortality was COVID-19-related in a considerable number of children with IEIs (29/60, 48.3%). The highest ICU admission and fatality rates were observed in cases belonging to cellular and humoral immunodeficiencies (26.5% and 18.6%) and immune dysregulatory diseases (35.8% and 17.9%) groups, especially in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 who suffered severe combined immunodeficiency (28.6% and 23.8%), combined immunodeficiency (25% and 15%), familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (40% and 20%), X-linked lymphoproliferative diseases-1 (75% and 75%) and X-linked lymphoproliferative diseases-2 (50% and 50%) compared to the other IEIs cases.ConclusionChildren with IEIs infected with SARS-CoV-2 may experience higher rates of ICU admission and mortality in comparison with the immunocompetent pediatric populations. Underlying immune defects does seem to be independent risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with IEIs, a number of children with SCID and CID were reported to have prolonged infections-though the number of patients is small-but especially immune dysregulation diseases (XLP1 and XLP2) and innate immunodeficiencies impairing type I interferon signalling (IFNAR1, IFNAR2 and TBK1).

Project description:It has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors.This study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors.Pharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors.Pharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6-9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80-2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89-2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61-1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders.The problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

Project description:While the importance of random sequencing errors decreases at higher DNA or RNA sequencing depths, systematic sequencing errors (SSEs) dominate at high sequencing depths and can be difficult to distinguish from biological variants. These SSEs can cause base quality scores to underestimate the probability of error at certain genomic positions, resulting in false positive variant calls, particularly in mixtures such as samples with RNA editing, tumors, circulating tumor cells, bacteria, mitochondrial heteroplasmy, or pooled DNA. Most algorithms proposed for correction of SSEs require a training data set, which is typically either from a part of the data set being M-bM-^@M-^\recalibratedM-bM-^@M-^] (Genome Analysis ToolKit, or GATK) or from a separate data set with special characteristics (SysCall). Here, we combine the advantages of these approaches by adding synthetic RNA spike-in standards to human RNA, and use GATK to recalibrate base quality scores with reads mapped to the spike-in standards. Compared to conventional GATK recalibration that uses reads mapped to the genome, spike-ins improve the accuracy of Illumina base quality scores by a mean of 5 units, and by as much as 13 units M-BM- at CpG sites. In addition, since reads mapping to the genome are not used for recalibration, our method allows run-specific recalibration even for the many species without a comprehensive and accurate SNP database. We also use GATK with the spike-in standards to demonstrate that the Illumina RNA sequencing runs overestimate quality scores for AC, CC, GC, GG, and TC dinucleotides, while SOLiD has less dinucleotide SSEs but more SSEs for certain cycles. We conclude that using these DNA and RNA spike-in standards with GATK improves base quality score recalibration. Four human RNA samples with equimolar ERCC spike-in standards were sequenced on Illumina. Two human brain/liver/muscle RNA mixtures with dynamic range of ERCC spike-in standards were sequenced on SOLiD.

Dataset Information

Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review.

Background

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Appraisal

Results

Limitations

Conclusion

Publications

Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets