Dataset Information

Risk factors associated with medication ordering errors.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We utilized a computerized order entry system-integrated function referred to as "void" to identify erroneous orders (ie, a "void" order). Using voided orders, we aimed to (1) identify the nature and characteristics of medication ordering errors, (2) investigate the risk factors associated with medication ordering errors, and (3) explore potential strategies to mitigate these risk factors.

Materials and methods

We collected data on voided orders using clinician interviews and surveys within 24 hours of the voided order and using chart reviews. Interviews were informed by the human factors-based SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) model to characterize the work systems-based risk factors contributing to ordering errors; chart reviews were used to establish whether a voided order was a true medication ordering error and ascertain its impact on patient safety.

Results

During the 16-month study period (August 25, 2017, to December 31, 2018), 1074 medication orders were voided; 842 voided orders were true medication errors (positive predictive value = 78.3 ± 1.2%). A total of 22% (n = 190) of the medication ordering errors reached the patient, with at least a single administration, without causing patient harm. Interviews were conducted on 355 voided orders (33% response). Errors were not uniquely associated with a single risk factor, but the causal contributors of medication ordering errors were multifactorial, arising from a combination of technological-, cognitive-, environmental-, social-, and organizational-level factors.

Conclusions

The void function offers a practical, standardized method to create a rich database of medication ordering errors. We highlight implications for utilizing the void function for future research, practice and learning opportunities.

SUBMITTER: Abraham J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7810458 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current approaches to understanding medication ordering errors rely on relatively small manually captured error samples. These approaches are resource-intensive, do not scale for computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems, and are likely to miss important risk factors associated with medication ordering errors. Previously, we described a dataset of CPOE-based medication voiding accompanied by univariable and multivariable regression analyses. However, these traditional techniques require expert guidance and may perform poorly compared to newer approaches. In this paper, we update that analysis using machine learning (ML) models to predict erroneous medication orders and identify its contributing factors. We retrieved patient demographics (race/ethnicity, sex, age), clinician characteristics, type of medication order (inpatient, prescription, home medication by history), and order content. We compared logistic regression, random forest, boosted decision trees, and artificial neural network models. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). The dataset included 5,804,192 medication orders, of which 28,695 (0.5%) were voided. ML correctly classified voids at reasonable accuracy; with a positive predictive value of 10%, ~20% of errors were included. Gradient boosted decision trees achieved the highest AUROC (0.7968) and AUPRC (0.0647) among all models. Logistic regression had the poorest performance. Models identified predictive factors with high face validity (e.g., student orders), and a decision tree revealed interacting contexts with high rates of errors not identified by previous regression models. Prediction models using order-entry information offers promise for error surveillance, patient safety improvements, and targeted clinical review. The improved performance of models with complex interactions points to the importance of contextual medication ordering information for understanding contributors to medication errors.

Project description:Background: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used as a measure of healthcare quality. Medicines are the most common therapeutic intervention but estimating the contribution of adverse drug events as a cause of readmissions is difficult. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and preventability of medication-related readmissions within 30 days after hospital discharge and to describe the risk factors, type of medication errors and types of medication involved in these preventable readmissions. Design: A cross-sectional observational study. Setting: The study took place across the cardiology, gastroenterology, internal medicine, neurology, psychiatry, pulmonology and general surgery departments in the OLVG teaching hospital, Netherlands. Participants: Patients with an unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from an earlier hospitalization (index hospitalization: IH) were reviewed. Measurements: The prevalence and preventability of medication-related readmissions were assessed by residents in multidisciplinary meetings. A senior internist and hospital pharmacist reassessed the prevalence and preventability of identified cases. Generalized estimating equation with logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors of potentially preventable medication-related readmissions. Results: Of 1,111 included readmissions, 181 (16%) were medication-related, of which 72 (40%) were potentially preventable. The number of medication changes at IH (Adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05-1.24) and having ≥3 hospitalizations 6 months before IH (ORadj: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.12-3.98) were risk factors of a preventable medication-related readmission. Of these preventable readmissions, 35% were due to prescribing errors, 35% by non-adherence and 30% by transition errors. Medications most frequently involved were diuretics and antidiabetics. Conclusion: This study shows that 16% of readmissions are medication-related, of which 40% are potentially preventable. If the results are confirmed in larger multicentre studies, this may indicate that more attention should be paid to medication-related harm in order to lower the overall readmission rates.

Project description:BACKGROUND: An accurate medication list at hospital admission is essential for the evaluation and further treatment of patients. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency, type and predictors of errors in medication history, and to evaluate the extent to which standard care corrects these errors. METHODS: A descriptive study was carried out in two medical wards in a Swedish hospital using Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM)-based medication reconciliation. A clinical pharmacist identified each patient's most accurate pre-admission medication list by conducting a medication reconciliation process shortly after admission. This list was then compared with the patient's medication list in the hospital medical records. Addition or withdrawal of a drug or changes to the dose or dosage form in the hospital medication list were considered medication discrepancies. Medication discrepancies for which no clinical reason could be identified (unintentional changes) were considered medication history errors. RESULTS: The final study population comprised 670 of 818 eligible patients. At least one medication history error was identified by pharmacists conducting medication reconciliations for 313 of these patients (47%; 95% CI 43-51%). The most common medication error was an omitted drug, followed by a wrong dose. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that a higher number of drugs at admission (odds ratio [OR] per 1 drug increase = 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.14; p < 0.0001) and the patient living in their own home without any care services (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.45; p = 0.042) were predictors for medication history errors at admission. The results further indicated that standard care by non-pharmacist ward staff had partly corrected the errors in affected patients by four days after admission, but a considerable proportion of the errors made in the initial medication history at admission remained undetected by standard care (OR for medication errors detected by pharmacists' medication reconciliation carried out on days 4-11 compared to days 0-1 = 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91; p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pharmacists conducting LIMM-based medication reconciliations have a high potential for correcting errors in medication history for all patients. In an older Swedish population, those prescribed many drugs seem to benefit most from admission medication reconciliation.

Project description:BackgroundMedical errors in blood product orders and administration are common, especially for pediatric patients. A failure modes and effects analysis in our health care system indicated high risk from the electronic blood ordering process.ObjectivesThere are two objectives of this study as follows:(1) To describe differences in the design of the original blood product orders and order sets in the system (original design), new orders and order sets designed by expert committee (DEC), and a third-version developed through user-centered design (UCD).(2) To compare the number and type of ordering errors, task completion rates, time on task, and user preferences between the original design and that developed via UCD.MethodsA multidisciplinary expert committee proposed adjustments to existing blood product order sets resulting in the DEC order set. When that order set was tested with front-line users, persistent failure modes were detected, so orders and order sets were redesigned again via formative usability testing. Front-line users in their native clinical workspaces were observed ordering blood in realistic simulated scenarios using a think-aloud protocol. Iterative adjustments were made between participants. In summative testing, participants were randomized to use the original design or UCD for five simulated scenarios. We evaluated differences in ordering errors, time on task, and users' design preference with two-sample t-tests.ResultsFormative usability testing with 27 providers from seven specialties led to 18 changes made to the DEC to produce the UCD. In summative testing, error-free task completion for the original design was 36%, which increased to 66% in UCD (30%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9-57%; p = 0.03). Time on task did not vary significantly.ConclusionUCD led to substantially different blood product orders and order sets than DEC. Users made fewer errors when ordering blood products for pediatric patients in simulated scenarios when using the UCD orders and order sets compared with the original design.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study was conducted to assess the magnitude and contributing factors of medication administration errors among nurses in federal hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.DesignA hospital-based cross-sectional study design was employed. Data on medication administration and associated factors were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was done to identify factors associated with medication administration errors on the basis of adjusted OR with 95% CI and a p value less than 0.05.SettingThis study was conducted in federal hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ParticipantsFour hundred and twenty-three randomly selected nurses participated.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome variable is medication administration error, which was ascertained using the following errors: wrong medication, wrong dose, wrong time, wrong route, wrong patient, wrong drug preparation, wrong advice, wrong assessment and wrong documentations.ResultsA total of 59.9% (95% CI: 55.0% to 64.8%) of the nurses in the federal hospitals in Addis Ababa committed one or more medication administration errors in the last 12 months prior to the survey. The most commonly reported medication errors were wrong time (56.8%), wrong documentation (33.3%), wrong advice (27.8%) and wrong dose (20.1%). Medication administration errors among nurses were significantly associated with short work experience (adjusted OR (AOR): 6.48, 95% CI: 1.32 to 31.78), night shift work (AOR: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.82 to 13.78), absence of on-the-job training (AOR: 3.16, 95% CI: 1.67 to 6.00), unavailability of medication administration guidelines in wards (AOR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.06 to 4.06) and interruptions during medication administration (AOR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.30 to 4.49).ConclusionIt was found that a high proportion of nurses in federal hospitals committed medication administration errors. Short work experience, night shift work, absence of on-the-job training, unavailability of medication administration guidelines and interruptions during medication administration explained the high magnitude of medication administration errors.