Dataset Information

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings. METHODS:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. PROSPERO:CRD42020164156. RESULTS:Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I2 =?99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I2 =?99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n?=?7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n?=?6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n?=?13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n?=?12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n?=?20, I2 =?96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n?=?22, I2 =?93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n?=?28, I2 =?97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n?=?9, I2 =?94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n?=?8, I2 =?99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the 'central nervous system' and 'cardiovascular system'. CONCLUSIONS:This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation's push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.

SUBMITTER: Hodkinson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7646069 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hodkinson Alexander A Tyler Natasha N Ashcroft Darren M DM Keers Richard N RN Khan Kanza K Phipps Denham D Abuzour Aseel A Bower Peter P Avery Anthony A Campbell Stephen S Panagioti Maria M

BMC medicine 20201106 1

<h4>Background</h4>Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Sea ...[more]

PMID: 33153451

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.Review methodsObservational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.ResultsOf the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337?025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10).ConclusionsAround one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

Project description:BackgroundThe Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act subsidizes implementation by hospitals of electronic health records with computerized provider order entry (CPOE), which may reduce patient injuries caused by medication errors (preventable adverse drug events, pADEs). Effects on pADEs have not been rigorously quantified, and effects on medication errors have been variable. The objectives of this analysis were to assess the effectiveness of CPOE at reducing pADEs in hospital-related settings, and examine reasons for heterogeneous effects on medication errors.MethodsArticles were identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Econlit, web-based databases, and bibliographies of previous systematic reviews (September 2013). Eligible studies compared CPOE with paper-order entry in acute care hospitals, and examined diverse pADEs or medication errors. Studies on children or with limited event-detection methods were excluded. Two investigators extracted data on events and factors potentially associated with effectiveness. We used random effects models to pool data.ResultsSixteen studies addressing medication errors met pooling criteria; six also addressed pADEs. Thirteen studies used pre-post designs. Compared with paper-order entry, CPOE was associated with half as many pADEs (pooled risk ratio (RR)?=?0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71) and medication errors (RR?=?0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60). Regarding reasons for heterogeneous effects on medication errors, five intervention factors and two contextual factors were sufficiently reported to support subgroup analyses or meta-regression. Differences between commercial versus homegrown systems, presence and sophistication of clinical decision support, hospital-wide versus limited implementation, and US versus non-US studies were not significant, nor was timing of publication. Higher baseline rates of medication errors predicted greater reductions (P?<?0.001). Other context and implementation variables were seldom reported.ConclusionsIn hospital-related settings, implementing CPOE is associated with a greater than 50% decline in pADEs, although the studies used weak designs. Decreases in medication errors are similar and robust to variations in important aspects of intervention design and context. This suggests that CPOE implementation, as subsidized under the HITECH Act, may benefit public health. More detailed reporting of the context and process of implementation could shed light on factors associated with greater effectiveness.

Project description:IntroductionChildren admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units may be at high risk from medication errors and preventable adverse drug events.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to review empirical studies examining the prevalence and nature of medication errors and preventable adverse drug events in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units.Data sourcesSeven electronic databases were searched between January 2000 and March 2019.Study selectionQuantitative studies that examined medication errors/preventable adverse drug events using direct observation, medication chart review, or a mixture of methods in children ≤ 18 years of age admitted to paediatric or neonatal intensive care units were included.Data extractionData on study design, detection method used, rates and types of medication errors/preventable adverse drug events, and medication classes involved were extracted.ResultsThirty-five unique studies were identified for inclusion. In paediatric intensive care units, the median rate of medication errors was 14.6 per 100 medication orders (interquartile range 5.7-48.8%, n = 3) and between 6.4 and 9.1 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). In neonatal intensive care units, medication error rates ranged from 4 to 35.1 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2) and from 5.5 to 77.9 per 100 medication orders (n = 2). In both settings, prescribing and medication administration errors were found to be the most common medication errors, with dosing errors the most frequently reported error subtype. Preventable adverse drug event rates were reported in three paediatric intensive care unit studies as 2.3 per 100 patients (n = 1) and 21-29 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). In neonatal intensive care units, preventable adverse drug event rates from three studies were 0.86 per 1000 doses (n = 1) and 0.47-14.38 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). Anti-infective agents were commonly involved with medication errors/preventable adverse drug events in both settings.ConclusionsMedication errors occur frequently in critically ill children admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units and may lead to patient harm. Important targets such as dosing errors and anti-infective medications were identified to guide the development of remedial interventions.

Project description:BackgroundMitigating or reducing the risk of harm associated with the delivery of healthcare is a policy priority. While the risk of harm can be reduced in some instances (i.e. preventable), what constitutes preventable harm remains unclear. A standardized and clear definition of preventable harm is the first step towards safer and more efficient healthcare delivery system. We aimed to summarize the definitions of preventable harm and its conceptualization in healthcare.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive electronic search of relevant databases from January 2001 to June 2011 for publications that reported a definition of preventable harm. Only English language publications were included. Definitions were coded for common concepts and themes. We included any study type, both original studies and reviews. Two reviewers screened the references for eligibility and 28% (127/460) were finally included. Data collected from studies included study type, description of the study population and setting, and data corresponding to the outcome of interest. Three reviewers extracted the data. The level of agreement between the reviewers was calculated.ResultsOne hundred and twenty seven studies were eligible. The three most prevalent preventable harms in the included studies were: medication adverse events (33/127 studies, 26%), central line infections (7/127, 6%) and venous thromboembolism (5/127, 4%). Seven themes or definitions for preventable harm were encountered. The top three were: presence of an identifiable modifiable cause (58/132 definitions, 44%), reasonable adaptation to a process will prevent future recurrence (30/132, 23%), adherence to guidelines (22/132, 16%). Data on the validity or operational characteristic (e.g., accuracy, reproducibility) of definitions were limited.ConclusionsThere is limited empirical evidence of the validity and reliability of the available definitions of preventable harm, such that no single one is supported by high quality evidence. The most common definition is "presence of an identifiable, modifiable cause of harm".

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:BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship programs have been established in hospitals, but less studied in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), a setting with unique challenges related to patient populations and available resources. This systematic review sought to provide a comprehensive assessment of antimicrobial stewardship interventions implemented in LTCFs, using meta-analysis to examine their impact on overall antimicrobial use.MethodsElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (1990 to July 2018) identified any antimicrobial stewardship interventions in LTCFs, with no restriction on patient population, study design, or outcomes. Intervention components were categorized using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care taxonomy on implementation strategies. Random-effects meta-analysis used ratio of means to facilitate pooling of different metrics of antimicrobial use.ResultsEighteen studies (one randomized controlled trial [RCT], four cluster RCTs, four controlled pre/post studies, and nine uncontrolled pre/post studies) met inclusion, using 13 different antimicrobial stewardship intervention strategies; 15 studies used multifaceted (maximum, seven; median, four) interventions. The three most commonly implemented strategies were educational materials, educational meetings, and guideline implementation. Intervention labor intensity and resource requirements varied considerably among interventions. Meta-analysis of 11 studies demonstrated that antimicrobial stewardship strategies were associated with a 14% reduction in overall antimicrobial use (95% confidence interval = -8% to -20%; P < .0001), with similar results by study design but high heterogeneity (I2 = 86%) for the uncontrolled pre/post study subgroup and no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) for the cluster RCT and controlled pre/post study subgroups. Funnel plot analysis suggested publication bias, with a lack of publication of smaller studies showing increased antibiotic use.ConclusionAntimicrobial stewardship strategies implemented in long-term care vary considerably in design and resource intensity, but collectively suggest potential to reduce antimicrobial use in this challenging setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:392-399, 2019.

Project description:Background Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care. Methods and Results PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex-specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, and antihypertensive medication prescription, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics, in primary care. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios for each cardiovascular medication prescription. Metaregression models assessed the impact of age and year on the findings. A total of 43 studies were included, involving 2 264 600 participants (28% women) worldwide. Participants' mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular medication prescription for women was 41% for aspirin, 60% for statins, and 68% for any antihypertensive medications. Corresponding rates for men were 56%, 63%, and 69% respectively. The pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for aspirin, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for statins, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95-1.08) for any antihypertensive medications. Women were less likely to be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89) but more likely with diuretics (1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37). Mean age, mean age difference between the sexes, and year of study had no significant impact on findings. Conclusions Sex differences in the prescription of cardiovascular medication exist among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care, with a lower prevalence of aspirin, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors prescription in women and a lower prevalence of diuretics prescription in men.

Dataset Information

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets