Dataset Information

Systemic Defenses to Prevent Intravenous Medication Errors in Hospitals: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Intravenous medication delivery is a complex process that poses systemic risks of errors. The objective of our study was to identify systemic defenses that can prevent in-hospital intravenous (IV) medication errors.

Methods

A systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, and the evidence was analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Forty-six studies from 11 countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic defenses related to administration (n = 24 studies), prescribing (n = 8), preparation (n = 6), treatment monitoring (n = 2), and dispensing (n = 1). In addition, 5 studies explored defenses related to multiple stages of the drug delivery process. Systemic defenses including features of closed-loop medication management systems appeared in 61% of the studies, with smart pumps being the defense most widely studied (24%). The evidence quality of the included articles was limited, as 83% were graded as low quality, 13% were of moderate quality, and only 4% were of high quality.

Conclusions

In-hospital IV medication processes are developing toward closed-loop medication management systems. Our study provides health care organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic defenses that can prevent IV medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed. There is a need for further studies to explore combinations of different systemic defenses and their effectiveness in error prevention throughout the drug delivery process.

SUBMITTER: Kuitunen SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8612901 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedication errors and adverse drug events are universal problems contributing to patient harm but the magnitude of these problems in Africa remains unclear.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to systematically investigate the literature on the extent of medication errors and adverse drug events, and the factors contributing to medication errors in African hospitals.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Global Health databases from inception to 31 August, 2017 and hand searched the reference lists of included studies. Original research studies of any design published in English that investigated adverse drug events and/or medication errors in any patient population in the hospital setting in Africa were included. Descriptive statistics including median and interquartile range were presented.ResultsFifty-one studies were included; of these, 33 focused on medication errors, 15 on adverse drug events, and three studies focused on medication errors and adverse drug events. These studies were conducted in nine (of the 54) African countries. In any patient population, the median (interquartile range) percentage of patients reported to have experienced any suspected adverse drug event at hospital admission was 8.4% (4.5-20.1%), while adverse drug events causing admission were reported in 2.8% (0.7-6.4%) of patients but it was reported that a median of 43.5% (20.0-47.0%) of the adverse drug events were deemed preventable. Similarly, the median mortality rate attributed to adverse drug events was reported to be 0.1% (interquartile range 0.0-0.3%). The most commonly reported types of medication errors were prescribing errors, occurring in a median of 57.4% (interquartile range 22.8-72.8%) of all prescriptions and a median of 15.5% (interquartile range 7.5-50.6%) of the prescriptions evaluated had dosing problems. Major contributing factors for medication errors reported in these studies were individual practitioner factors (e.g. fatigue and inadequate knowledge/training) and environmental factors, such as workplace distraction and high workload.ConclusionMedication errors in the African healthcare setting are relatively common, and the impact of adverse drug events is substantial but many are preventable. This review supports the design and implementation of preventative strategies targeting the most likely contributing factors.

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:Objectives: Medication errors (MEs) are the most common cause of adverse drug events (ADEs) and one of the most encountered patient safety issues in clinical settings. This study aimed to determine the types of MEs in secondary care hospitals in Kuwait and identify their causes. Also, it sought to determine the existing system of error reporting in Kuwait and identify reporting barriers from the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Material and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a pre-tested self-administered questionnaire. Full-time physicians, pharmacists, and nurses (aged 21 years and older) working in secondary care governmental hospitals in Kuwait were considered eligible to participate in the study. Descriptive statistics and the Statistical Package for Social Science Software (SPSS), version 27 were used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 215 HCPs were approached and asked to take part in the study, of which 208 agreed, giving a response rate of 96.7%. Most HCPs (n = 129, 62.0%) reported that the most common type of ME is "prescribing error," followed by "compliance error" (n = 83; 39.9%). Most HCPs thought that a high workload and lack of enough breaks (n = 128; 61.5%) were the most common causes of MEs, followed by miscommunication, either among medical staff or between staff and patients, which scored (n = 89; 42.8%) and (n = 82; 39.4%), respectively. In the past 12 months, 77.4% (n = 161) of HCPs reported that they did not fill out any ME incident reports. The lack of feedback (n = 65; 31.3%), as well as the length and complexity of the existing incident reporting forms (n = 63; 30.3%), were the major barriers against reporting any identified MEs. Conclusions: MEs are common in secondary care hospitals in Kuwait and can be found at many stages of practice. HCPs suggested many strategies to help reduce MEs, including proper communication between HCPs; double-checking every step of the process before administering medications to patients; providing training to keep HCPs up to date on any new treatment guidelines, and computerizing the health system.