Dataset Information

Liquid Medication Errors and Dosing Tools: A Randomized Controlled Experiment.

ABSTRACT: Poorly designed labels and packaging are key contributors to medication errors. To identify attributes of labels and dosing tools that could be improved, we examined the extent to which dosing error rates are affected by tool characteristics (ie, type, marking complexity) and discordance between units of measurement on labels and dosing tools; along with differences by health literacy and language.Randomized controlled experiment in 3 urban pediatric clinics. English- or Spanish-speaking parents (n = 2110) of children ?8 years old were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 study arms and given labels and dosing tools that varied in unit pairings. Each parent measured 9 doses of medication (3 amounts [2.5, 5, and 7.5 mL] and 3 tools [1 cup, 2 syringes (0.2- and 0.5-mL increments)]), in random order. Outcome assessed was dosing error (>20% deviation; large error defined as > 2 times the dose).A total of 84.4% of parents made ?1 dosing error (21.0% ?1 large error). More errors were seen with cups than syringes (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-5.1) across health literacy and language groups (P < .001 for interactions), especially for smaller doses. No differences in error rates were seen between the 2 syringe types. Use of a teaspoon-only label (with a milliliter and teaspoon tool) was associated with more errors than when milliliter-only labels and tools were used (adjusted odds ratio = 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.4).Recommending oral syringes over cups, particularly for smaller doses, should be part of a comprehensive pediatric labeling and dosing strategy to reduce medication errors.

SUBMITTER: Yin HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5051204 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Liquid Medication Errors and Dosing Tools: A Randomized Controlled Experiment.

Yin H Shonna HS Parker Ruth M RM Sanders Lee M LM Dreyer Benard P BP Mendelsohn Alan L AL Bailey Stacy S Patel Deesha A DA Jimenez Jessica J JJ Kim Kwang-Youn A KA Jacobson Kara K Hedlund Laurie L Smith Michelle C J MC Maness Harris Leslie L McFadden Terri T Wolf Michael S MS

Pediatrics 20160912 4

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Poorly designed labels and packaging are key contributors to medication errors. To identify attributes of labels and dosing tools that could be improved, we examined the extent to which dosing error rates are affected by tool characteristics (ie, type, marking complexity) and discordance between units of measurement on labels and dosing tools; along with differences by health literacy and language.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized controlled experiment in 3 urban pedia ...[more]

PMID: 27621414

Similar Datasets

Project description:Poorly designed labels and dosing tools contribute to dosing errors. We examined the degree to which errors could be reduced with pictographic diagrams, milliliter-only units, and provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed volumes.This study involved a randomized controlled experiment in 3 pediatric clinics. English- and Spanish-speaking parents (n = 491) of children ?8 years old were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups and given labels and dosing tools that varied in label instruction format (text and pictogram, or text only) and units (milliliter-only ["mL"] or milliliter/teaspoon ["mL/tsp"]). Each parent measured 9 doses of liquid medication (3 amounts [2, 7.5, and 10 mL] and 3 tools [1 cup, 2 syringes (5- and 10-mL capacities)]) in random order. The primary outcome was dosing error (>20% deviation), and large error (>2× dose).We found that 83.5% of parents made ?1 dosing error (overdosing was present in 12.1% of errors) and 29.3% of parents made ?1 large error (>2× dose). The greatest impact on errors resulted from the provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes. For the 2-mL dose, the fewest errors were seen with the 5-mL syringe (5- vs 10-mL syringe: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 7.5 [5.7-10.0]). For the 7.5-mL dose, the fewest errors were with the 10-mL syringe, which did not necessitate measurement of multiple instrument-fulls (5- vs 10-mL syringe: aOR = 4.0 [3.0-5.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 2.1 [1.5-2.9]). Milliliter/teaspoon was associated with more errors than milliliter-only (aOR = 1.3 [1.05-1.6]). Parents who received text only (versus text and pictogram) instructions or milliliter/teaspoon (versus milliliter-only) labels and tools made more large errors (aOR = 1.9 [1.1-3.3], aOR = 2.5 [1.4-4.6], respectively).Provision of dosing tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes is an especially promising strategy for reducing pediatric dosing errors.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of a 'do not interrupt' vest during medication administration rounds is recommended but there have been no controlled randomized studies to evaluate its impact on reducing administration errors. We aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing such a vest on reducing such errors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the types and potential clinical impact of errors, the association between errors and several risk factors (such as interruptions), and nurses' experiences.MethodsThis was a multicenter, cluster, controlled, randomized study (March-July 2017) in 29 adult units (4 hospitals). Data were collected by direct observation by trained observers. All nurses from selected units were informed. A 'Do not interrupt' vest was implemented in all units of the experimental group. A poster was placed at the entrance of these units to inform patients and relatives. The main outcome was the administration error rate (number of Opportunities for Error (OE), calculated as one or more errors divided by the Total Opportunities for Error (TOE) and multiplied by 100).ResultsWe enrolled 178 nurses and 1346 patients during 383 medication rounds in 14 units in the experimental group and 15 units in the control group. During the intervention period, the administration error rates were 7.09% (188 OE with at least one error/2653 TOE) for the experimental group and 6.23% (210 OE with at least one error/3373 TOE) for the control group (p = 0.192). Identified risk factors (patient age, nurses' experience, nurses' workload, unit exposition, and interruption) were not associated with the error rate. The main error type observed for both groups was wrong dosage-form. Most errors had no clinical impact for the patient and the interruption rates were 15.04% for the experimental group and 20.75% for the control group.ConclusionsThe intervention vest had no impact on medication administration error or interruption rates. Further studies need to be performed taking into consideration the limitations of our study and other risk factors associated with other interventions, such as nurse's training and/or a barcode system.Trial registrationThe PERMIS study protocol (V2-1, 11/04/2017) was approved by institutional review boards and ethics committees (CPP Ile de France number 2016-A00211-50, CNIL 21/03/2017, CCTIRS 11/04/2016). It is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03062852 , date of first registration: 23/02/2017).

Project description:BackgroundLiquid medication dosing errors (LMDE) made by caregivers affect treatment in children, but this is not a well-studied topic in many low-and middle-income countries including in India.MethodsAn intervention study was conducted among mothers attending a pediatric outpatient clinic of a tertiary care setting in Ujjain, India. The mothers randomly measured 12 volumes of a paracetamol liquid preparation by using a dropper (0.5 and 1 mL), measuring cup (2.5 and 5 mL), and calibrated spoon (2.5 and 5 mL) each with two instructions-oral-only measurement session (OMS) and oral plus pictogram measurement session (OPMS, the intervention). The main outcome was dosing error prevalence. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed by measuring effect size. Risk factors for maximum LMDE were explored using backward multivariate logistic regression models. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsIn total, 310 mothers [mean (± SD) age, 30.2 (± 4.18) years] were included. LMDE prevalence in the OMS versus OPMS for dropper 0.5 mL was 60% versus 48%; for l mL dropper was 63% versus 54%; for 2.5 mL cup 62% versus 54%; for 2.5 calibrated spoon 66% versus 59%; 5 mL cup 69% versus 57%; and 5 mL calibrated spoon 68% versus 55%. Comparing OMS with OPMS, underdosing was minimum with the calibrated spoon for 2.5 mL (OR 4.39) and maximum with the dropper for 1 mL (OR 9.40), and overdosing was minimum with the dropper for 0.5 mL (OR 7.12) and maximum with the calibrated spoon for 2.5 mL (OR 13.24). The effect size (dCohen) of the intervention OPMS was 1.86-6.4. Risk factors for the most prevalent dosing error, that is, with the calibrated spoon for 2.5 mL, were increasing age of the mother (aOR 1.08; P = 0.026) and nuclear family (aOR 2.83; P = 0.002). The risk of dosing errors decreased with higher education of the mothers.ConclusionsPictograms can effectively minimize LMDE even in less educated mothers.

Project description:BackgroundOur aim was to investigate whether self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization affects the number of dispensing errors, perceptions regarding medication, and participant satisfaction when compared with nurse-led medication dispensing.MethodsA pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients aged ⩾ 18 years capable of SAM were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, or did not speak Danish.Intervention group participants self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses.The primary outcome was the proportion of dispensing errors collected through modified disguised observation of participants and nurses. Dispensing errors were divided into clinical and procedural errors.Secondary outcomes were explored through telephone calls to determine participant perceptions regarding medication and satisfaction, and finally, deviations in their medication list two weeks after discharge.ResultsSignificantly fewer dispensing errors were observed in the intervention group, with 100 errors/1033 opportunities for error (9.7%), compared with 132 errors/1028 opportunities for error (12.8%) in the control group. The number of clinical errors was significantly reduced, whereas no difference in procedural errors was observed. At follow up, those who were self-administering medication had fewer concerns regarding their medication, found medication to be less harmful, were more satisfied, preferred this opportunity in the future, and had fewer deviations in their medication list after discharge compared with the control group.ConclusionIn conclusion, the reduced number of dispensing errors in the intervention group, indicate that SAM is safe. In addition, SAM had a positive impact on (a) perceptions regarding medication, thus suggesting increased medication adherence, (b) deviations in medication list after discharge, and (c) participant satisfaction related to medication management at the hospital.

Dataset Information

Liquid Medication Errors and Dosing Tools: A Randomized Controlled Experiment.

Publications

Liquid Medication Errors and Dosing Tools: A Randomized Controlled Experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets