Dataset Information

Can use of pictograms reduce liquid medication administration errors by mothers? An interventional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Liquid 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.

Methods

An 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.

Results

In 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 (d_Cohen) 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.

Conclusions

Pictograms can effectively minimize LMDE even in less educated mothers.

SUBMITTER: Patidar P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8228905 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:Introduction: Pediatric patients cared for in professional healthcare settings are at high risk of medication errors. Interventions to improve patient safety often focus on prescribing; however, the subsequent stages in the medication use process (dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring) are also error-prone. This systematic review aims to identify and analyze interventions to reduce dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring errors in professional pediatric healthcare settings. Methods: Four databases were searched for experimental studies with separate control and intervention groups, published in English between 2011 and 2019. Interventions were classified for the first time in pediatric medication safety according to the "hierarchy of controls" model, which predicts that interventions at higher levels are more likely to bring about change. Higher-level interventions aim to reduce risks through elimination, substitution, or engineering controls. Examples of these include the introduction of smart pumps instead of standard pumps (a substitution control) and the introduction of mandatory barcode scanning for drug administration (an engineering control). Administrative controls such as guidelines, warning signs, and educational approaches are lower on the hierarchy and therefore predicted by this model to be less likely to be successful. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1 study of dispensing errors, 7 studies of drug administration errors, and 12 studies targeting multiple steps of the medication use process. A total of 44 interventions were identified. Eleven of these were considered higher-level controls (four substitution and seven engineering controls). The majority of interventions (n = 33) were considered "administrative controls" indicating a potential reliance on these measures. Studies that implemented higher-level controls were observed to be more likely to reduce errors, confirming that the hierarchy of controls model may be useful in this setting. Heterogeneous study methods, definitions, and outcome measures meant that a meta-analysis was not appropriate. Conclusions: When designing interventions to reduce pediatric dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring errors, the hierarchy of controls model should be considered, with a focus placed on the introduction of higher-level controls, which may be more likely to reduce errors than the administrative controls often seen in practice. Trial Registration Prospero Identifier: CRD42016047127.

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.