Dataset Information

Standardising the Classification of Harm Associated with Medication Errors: The Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC).

ABSTRACT: Classifying harm associated with a medication error can be time consuming and labour intensive and limited studies undertake this step. There is no standardised process, and few studies that report harm assessment provide adequate methods to allow for study replication. Studies typically mention that a clinical review panel classified patient harm and provide a reference to a classification tool. Moreover, in many studies it is unclear whether potential or actual harm was classified as studies refer only to 'error severity'. The tools used to categorise the severity of patient harm vary widely across studies and few have been assessed for inter-rater reliability and criterion validity. In this paper, we describe the systematic process we undertook to synthesise the defining elements and strengths, while mitigating the limitations, of existing harm classification tools to derive the Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC). This new tool provides a harm classification for use across clinical and research settings. The provision of an explicit process for its application and guiding category descriptors are designed to reduce the risk of misclassification and produce results that are comparable across studies. As the World Health Organisation embarks on its international safety challenge of reducing medication-related harm by 50%, accompanying methodological advances are required to measure progress.

SUBMITTER: Gates PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6647434 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standardising the Classification of Harm Associated with Medication Errors: The Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC).

Gates Peter J PJ Baysari Melissa T MT Mumford Virginia V Raban Magdalena Z MZ Westbrook Johanna I JI

Drug safety 20190801 8

Classifying harm associated with a medication error can be time consuming and labour intensive and limited studies undertake this step. There is no standardised process, and few studies that report harm assessment provide adequate methods to allow for study replication. Studies typically mention that a clinical review panel classified patient harm and provide a reference to a classification tool. Moreover, in many studies it is unclear whether potential or actual harm was classified as studies r ...[more]

PMID: 31016678

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems are electronic prescribing strategies that are increasingly used to improve patient safety. Previous reviews show limited effect on patient outcomes. Our objective was to assess the impact of electronic prescribing strategies on medication errors and patient harm in hospitalized patients. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from January 2007 to January 2018. We included prospective studies that compared hospital-based electronic prescribing strategies with control, and reported on medication error or patient harm. Data were abstracted by two reviewers and pooled using random effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS:Thirty-eight studies were included; comprised of 11 randomized control trials and 27 non-randomized interventional studies. Electronic prescribing strategies reduced medication errors (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.13, 0.46), I2 98%, n?=?11) and dosing errors (RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.08, 0.38), I2 96%, n?=?9), with both risk ratios significantly affected by advancing year of publication. There was a significant effect of electronic prescribing strategies on adverse drug events (ADEs) (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.40, 0.68), I2 0%, n?=?2), but not on preventable ADEs (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.01), I2 78%, n?=?3), hypoglycemia (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.62-1.70), I2 28%, n?=?7), length of stay (MD -?0.18 (95% -?1.42, 1.05), I2 94%, n?=?7), or mortality (RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.79, 1.19), I2 74%, n?=?9). The quality of evidence was rated very low. DISCUSSION:Electronic prescribing strategies decrease medication errors and adverse drug events, but had no effect on other patient outcomes. Conservative interpretations of these findings are supported by significant heterogeneity and the preponderance of low-quality studies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the epidemiology of medication errors and error-related adverse events in adults in primary care, ambulatory care and patients' homes.DesignSystematic review.Data sourceSix international databases were searched for publications between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015.Data extraction and analysisTwo researchers independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the quality of these using established instruments. Synthesis of data was informed by an appreciation of the medicines' management process and the conceptual framework from the International Classification for Patient Safety.Results60 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 53 studies focused on medication errors, 3 on error-related adverse events and 4 on risk factors only. The prevalence of prescribing errors was reported in 46 studies: prevalence estimates ranged widely from 2% to 94%. Inappropriate prescribing was the most common type of error reported. Only one study reported the prevalence of monitoring errors, finding that incomplete therapeutic/safety laboratory-test monitoring occurred in 73% of patients. The incidence of preventable adverse drug events (ADEs) was estimated as 15/1000 person-years, the prevalence of drug-drug interaction-related adverse drug reactions as 7% and the prevalence of preventable ADE as 0.4%. A number of patient, healthcare professional and medication-related risk factors were identified, including the number of medications used by the patient, increased patient age, the number of comorbidities, use of anticoagulants, cases where more than one physician was involved in patients' care and care being provided by family physicians/general practitioners.ConclusionA very wide variation in the medication error and error-related adverse events rates is reported in the studies, this reflecting heterogeneity in the populations studied, study designs employed and outcomes evaluated. This review has identified important limitations and discrepancies in the methodologies used and gaps in the literature on the epidemiology and outcomes of medication errors in community settings.

Dataset Information

Standardising the Classification of Harm Associated with Medication Errors: The Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC).

Publications

Standardising the Classification of Harm Associated with Medication Errors: The Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets