Dataset Information

Clinical Decision Support System-Assisted Pharmacy Intervention Reduces Feeding Tube-Related Medication Errors in Hospitalized Patients: A Focus on Medication Suitable for Feeding-Tube Administration.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Administering medication through an enteral feeding tube (FT) is a frequent cause of errors resulting in increased morbidity and cost. Studies on interventions to prevent these errors in hospitalized patients, however, are limited.

Objective

The objective was to study the effect of a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-assisted pharmacy intervention on the incidence of FT-related medication errors (FTRMEs) in hospitalized patients.

Methods

A pre-post intervention study was conducted between October 2014 and May 2015 in Catharina Hospital, the Netherlands. Patients who were admitted to the wards of bowel and liver disease, oncology, or neurology; using oral medication; and had an enteral FT were included. Preintervention patients were given care as usual. The intervention consisted of implementing a CDSS-assisted pharmacy check while also implementing standard operating procedures and educating personnel. An FTRME was defined as the administration of inappropriate medication through an enteral FT. The incidence was expressed as the number of FTRMEs per medication administration. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to calculate the incidence ratio (IR) comparing both phases.

Results

Eighty-one patients were included, 38 during preintervention and 43 during the intervention phase. Incidence of FTRMEs in the preintervention phase was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.23) vs 0.02 (95% CI, 0.00-0.04) in the intervention phase, resulting in an adjusted IR of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.10-0.18).

Discussion

Incidence of FTRMEs, as well as the IR, is comparable to previous studies.

Conclusion

The intervention resulted in a substantial reduction in the incidence of FTRMEs.

SUBMITTER: Wasylewicz ATM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8048796 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoor prescribing and incomplete medication administration have been linked to increased lengths of hospitalization for patients with Parkinson disease. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has recommended that patients with Parkinson disease receive a pharmacy consultation within 2 h of admission to hospital.ObjectivesTo examine whether the time for a pharmacy team member to obtain a best possible medication history (BPMH) was associated with administration-related medication errors. The primary outcome was the proportion of doses with a medication error during a patient's admission in relation to the time to completion of the initial BPMH by a registered pharmacist (RPh) or registered pharmacy technician (RPhT). The secondary objective was to compare the proportion of doses with a medication error in relation to whether the BPMH was completed by an RPh or an RPhT.MethodsThis retrospective chart review involved patients with Parkinson disease who were admitted to the medicine services at London Health Sciences Centre from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2018. Patients were included if they had Parkinson disease and a medication regimen that included levodopa-carbidopa. For all patients, an RPhT or RPh conducted the initial BPMH or updated the BPMH. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine whether a correlation existed between administration-related errors and completion of the BPMH by a pharmacy staff member.ResultsA total of 84 patients with 104 admissions were included. There was no significant correlation between the time to completion of the initial BPMH by a pharmacy team member and the proportion of doses with medication errors (p = 0.32). Although RPhTs completed the BPMHs more quickly than RPhs (p < 0.001), there was no significant difference between pharmacy team members in terms of the proportion of doses with medication errors (p = 0.86).ConclusionsCompleting a BPMH within 2 h of a patient's admission, as per the ISMP recommendation, is unlikely to affect administration-related medication errors, given that no correlation was identified. Expediting BPMH without addressing other factors is insufficient, and initiatives are required to improve the medication administration process.

Project description:To improve neonatal patient safety through automated detection of medication administration errors (MAEs) in high alert medications including narcotics, vasoactive medication, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition, and insulin using the electronic health record (EHR); to evaluate rates of MAEs in neonatal care; and to compare the performance of computerized algorithms to traditional incident reporting for error detection.We developed novel computerized algorithms to identify MAEs within the EHR of all neonatal patients treated in a level four neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in 2011 and 2012. We evaluated the rates and types of MAEs identified by the automated algorithms and compared their performance to incident reporting. Performance was evaluated by physician chart review.In the combined 2011 and 2012 NICU data sets, the automated algorithms identified MAEs at the following rates: fentanyl, 0.4% (4 errors/1005 fentanyl administration records); morphine, 0.3% (11/4009); dobutamine, 0 (0/10); and milrinone, 0.3% (5/1925). We found higher MAE rates for other vasoactive medications including: dopamine, 11.6% (5/43); epinephrine, 10.0% (289/2890); and vasopressin, 12.8% (54/421). Fluid administration error rates were similar: intravenous fluids, 3.2% (273/8567); parenteral nutrition, 3.2% (649/20124); and lipid administration, 1.3% (203/15227). We also found 13 insulin administration errors with a resulting rate of 2.9% (13/456). MAE rates were higher for medications that were adjusted frequently and fluids administered concurrently. The algorithms identified many previously unidentified errors, demonstrating significantly better sensitivity (82% vs. 5%) and precision (70% vs. 50%) than incident reporting for error recognition.Automated detection of medication administration errors through the EHR is feasible and performs better than currently used incident reporting systems. Automated algorithms may be useful for real-time error identification and mitigation.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Older people in long-term residential care are at increased risk of medication prescribing and administration errors. The main aim of this study was to measure the incidence of medication administration errors in nursing and residential homes using a barcode medication administration (BCMA) system. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in 13 care homes (9 residential and 4 nursing). Data on all medication administrations for a cohort of 345 older residents were recorded in real-time using a disguised observation technique. Every attempt by social care and nursing staff to administer medication over a 3-month observation period was analysed using BCMA records to determine the incidence and types of potential medication administration errors (MAEs) and whether errors were averted. Error classifications included attempts to administer medication at the wrong time, to the wrong person or discontinued medication. Further analysis compared data for residential and nursing homes. In addition, staff were surveyed prior to BCMA system implementation to assess their awareness of administration errors. RESULTS: A total of 188,249 medication administration attempts were analysed using BCMA data. Typically each resident was receiving nine different drugs and was exposed to 206 medication administration episodes every month. During the observation period, 2,289 potential MAEs were recorded for the 345 residents; 90% of residents were exposed to at least one error. The most common (n = 1,021, 45% of errors) was attempting to give medication at the wrong time. Over the 3-month observation period, half (52%) of residents were exposed to a serious error such as attempting to give medication to the wrong resident. Error incidence rates were 1.43 as high (95% CI 1.32-1.56 p < 0.001) in nursing homes as in residential homes. The level of non-compliance with system alerts was very low in both settings (0.075% of administrations). The pre-study survey revealed that only 12/41 staff administering drugs reported they were aware of potential administration errors in their care home. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of medication administration errors is high in long-term residential care. A barcode medication administration system can capture medication administration errors and prevent these from occurring.

Project description:PurposeMedications are mostly taken in patients' own homes, increasingly administered by carers, yet studies of medication safety have been largely conducted in the hospital setting. We aimed to review studies of how carers cause and/or prevent medication administration errors (MAEs) within the patient's home; to identify types, prevalence and causes of these MAEs and any interventions to prevent them.MethodsA narrative systematic review of literature published between 1 Jan 1946 and 23 Sep 2013 was carried out across the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, COCHRANE and CINAHL. Empirical studies were included where carers were responsible for preventing/causing MAEs in the home and standardised tools used for data extraction and quality assessment.ResultsThirty-six papers met the criteria for narrative review, 33 of which included parents caring for children, two predominantly comprised adult children and spouses caring for older parents/partners, and one focused on paid carers mostly looking after older adults. The carer administration error rate ranged from 1.9 to 33% of medications administered and from 12 to 92.7% of carers administering medication. These included dosage errors, omitted administration, wrong medication and wrong time or route of administration. Contributory factors included individual carer factors (e.g. carer age), environmental factors (e.g. storage), medication factors (e.g. number of medicines), prescription communication factors (e.g. comprehensibility of instructions), psychosocial factors (e.g. carer-to-carer communication), and care-recipient factors (e.g. recipient age). The few interventions effective in preventing MAEs involved carer training and tailored equipment.ConclusionThis review shows that home medication administration errors made by carers are a potentially serious patient safety issue. Carers made similar errors to those made by professionals in other contexts and a wide variety of contributory factors were identified. The home care setting should be a priority for the development of patient safety interventions.

Project description:BackgroundMedication administration errors (MAEs) are a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in acute care settings and can result in a prolonged hospital stay. The WHO estimated that medication errors cost up to $42 billion globally per a year. Therefore, MAEs was among the most common medical errors to occur in acute care settings. Studies of medication error usually focus on system factors, thus creating a gap between what researchers know about the causes of MAEs, and what frontline nurses actually do in the clinical setting. The purpose of this review is to fill a gap in the existing literature by focusing on the relationship between nurses' characteristics and MAEs.MethodsOnline databases were accessed, including CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar from 2007-2020 period. This review was guided by the methods described by Whittemore and Knafl. Studies that addressed the occurrence of medication errors based on RN demographics were included in this review. The included studies were reviewed and analyzed by the two authors.ResultsOf the 1141 publications retrieved, 19 studies met inclusion criteria. The result provided strong evidence that nurses' level of education, length of experience, and attendance at training courses, are directly associated with the occurrence of MAEs. There is weak evidence of MAEs being influenced by the age and gender of nurses. Other nurse characteristics, such as cognitive load, frustration with technology, negligence, lack of attentiveness, and nurse ethnicity, are not adequately examined across the reviewed studies necessitates further research.ConclusionFocusing on nurses' characteristics might facilitate other researchers to suggest appropriate interventions that may reduce the incidence of MAEs. Interventional studies may provide convincing evidence as to whether one variable has a causal effect on another variable, and control the influence of confounding variables to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Project description:Hospitalized children are at risk of medication errors (MEs) due to complex dosage calculations and preparations. Incident reporting systems may facilitate prevention of MEs but underreporting potentially undermines this system. We aimed to examine whether scenarios involving medications should be reported to a national mandatory incident reporting system and the likelihood of self- and peer-reporting these scenarios among paediatric nurses and physicians.Participants' reporting of MEs was explored through a questionnaire involving 20 medication scenarios. The scenarios represented different steps in the medication process, types of error, patient outcomes and medications. Reporting rates and odds ratios with 95% confidence interval [OR, (95% CI)] were calculated. Barriers to and enablers of reporting were identified through content analysis of participants' comments.The response rate was 42% (291/689). Overall, 61% of participants reported that scenarios should be reported. The likelihood of reporting was 60% for self-reporting and 37% for peer-reporting. Nurses versus physicians, and healthcare professionals with versus without patient safety responsibilities assessed to a larger extent that the scenarios should be reported [OR = 1.34 (1.05-1.70) and OR = 1.41 (1.12-1.78), respectively]; were more likely to self-report, [OR = 2.81 (1.71-4.62) and OR = 2.93 (1.47-5.84), respectively]; and were more likely to peer-report [OR = 1.89 (1.36-2.63) and OR = 3.61 (2.57-5.06), respectively].Healthcare professionals with versus without management responsibilities were more likely to peer-report [OR = 5.16 (3.44-7.72)]. Participants reported that scenarios resulting in actual injury or incidents considered to have a learning potential should be reported.The likelihood of underreporting scenarios was high among paediatric nurses and physicians. Nurses and staff with patient safety responsibilities were more likely to assess that scenarios should be reported and to report. Incidents with actual injury or learning potential were more likely to be reported. The potential for improving reporting rates involving MEs seems high.

Project description:BackgroundMedication errors, including dispensing errors, represent a substantial worldwide health risk with significant implications in terms of morbidity, mortality, and financial costs. Although pharmacists use methods like barcode scanning and double-checking for dispensing verification, these measures exhibit limitations. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmacy verification emerges as a potential solution, offering precision, rapid data analysis, and the ability to recognize medications through computer vision. For AI to be embraced, it must be designed with the end user in mind, fostering trust, clear communication, and seamless collaboration between AI and pharmacists.ObjectiveThis study aimed to gather pharmacists' feedback in a focus group setting to help inform the initial design of the user interface and iterative designs of the AI prototype.MethodsA multidisciplinary research team engaged pharmacists in a 3-stage process to develop a human-centered AI system for medication dispensing verification. To design the AI model, we used a Bayesian neural network that predicts the dispensed pills' National Drug Code (NDC). Discussion scripts regarding how to design the system and feedback in focus groups were collected through audio recordings and professionally transcribed, followed by a content analysis guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety and Human-Machine Teaming theoretical frameworks.ResultsA total of 8 pharmacists participated in 3 rounds of focus groups to identify current challenges in medication dispensing verification, brainstorm solutions, and provide feedback on our AI prototype. Participants considered several teaming scenarios, generally favoring a hybrid teaming model where the AI assists in the verification process and a pharmacist intervenes based on medication risk level and the AI's confidence level. Pharmacists highlighted the need for improving the interpretability of AI systems, such as adding stepwise checkmarks, probability scores, and details about drugs the AI model frequently confuses with the target drug. Pharmacists emphasized the need for simplicity and accessibility. They favored displaying only essential information to prevent overwhelming users with excessive data. Specific design features, such as juxtaposing pill images with their packaging for quick comparisons, were requested. Pharmacists preferred accept, reject, or unsure options. The final prototype interface included (1) checkmarks to compare pill characteristics between the AI-predicted NDC and the prescription's expected NDC, (2) a histogram showing predicted probabilities for the AI-identified NDC, (3) an image of an AI-provided "confused" pill, and (4) an NDC match status (ie, match, unmatched, or unsure).ConclusionsIn partnership with pharmacists, we developed a human-centered AI prototype designed to enhance AI interpretability and foster trust. This initiative emphasized human-machine collaboration and positioned AI as an augmentative tool rather than a replacement. This study highlights the process of designing a human-centered AI for dispensing verification, emphasizing its interpretability, confidence visualization, and collaborative human-machine teaming styles.