Search

Purpose: Anticoagulant drugs are among the most common medications that cause adverse drug events (ADEs) in hospitalized patients. We performed a 5-year retrospective study at Brigham and Women's Hospital to determine clinical characteristics, types, root causes, and outcomes of anticoagulant-associated ADEs., Methods: We reviewed all inpatient anticoagulant-associated ADEs, including adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and medication errors, reported at Brigham and Women's Hospital through the Safety Reporting System from May 2004 to May 2009. We also collected data about the cost associated with hospitalizations in which ADRs occurred., Results: Of 463 anticoagulant-associated ADEs, 226 were medication errors (48.8%), 141 were ADRs (30.5%), and 96 (20.7%) involved both a medication error and ADR. Seventy percent of anticoagulant-associated ADEs were potentially preventable. Transcription errors (48%) were the most frequent root cause of anticoagulant-associated medication errors, while medication errors (40%) were a common root cause of anticoagulant-associated ADRs. Death within 30 days of anticoagulant-associated ADEs occurred in 11% of patients. After an anticoagulant-associated ADR, most hospitalization expenditures were attributable to nursing costs (mean $33,189 per ADR), followed by pharmacy costs (mean $7451 per ADR)., Conclusion: Most anticoagulant-associated ADEs among inpatients result from medication errors and are, therefore, potentially preventable. We observed an elevated 30-day mortality rate among patients who suffered an anticoagulant-associated ADE and high hospitalization costs following ADRs. Further quality improvement efforts to reduce anticoagulant-associated medication errors are warranted to improve patient safety and decrease health care expenditures., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We compared adherence to unfractionated heparin (UFH) 2 or 3 times daily prophylaxis orders versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) once daily orders. Our goals were to determine which strategy demonstrated the best adherence in terms of timing and frequency of dose administration, and to determine reasons for ordered heparin not being administered., Methods: We queried our electronic medication administration record where nurses document reasons for delayed administration or omitted doses. We identified 250 consecutive patients who were prescribed prophylaxis with UFH 2 or 3 times daily or LMWH once daily. We followed patients for their hospitalization to determine adherence to physicians' prophylaxis orders., Results: Adherence, defined as the ratio of prophylaxis doses given to doses ordered, was greater with LMWH (94.9%) than UFH 3 times daily (87.8%) or UFH twice daily (86.8%) regimens (P <.001). Patients receiving LMWH more often received all of their scheduled prophylaxis doses (77%) versus UFH 3 times daily (54%) or UFH twice daily (45%) (P <.001). There were no differences between regimens regarding reasons for omitted doses. The most common reason for late or omitted doses was patient refusal, which explained 44% of the UFH and 39% of the LMWH orders that were not administered., Conclusions: LMWH once a day had better adherence than UFH 2 or 3 times daily. For both LMWH and UFH, patient refusal was the most common reason for not administering prophylaxis as prescribed. These findings require consideration when evaluating pharmacological prophylaxis strategies. Educational programs, explaining the rationale, may motivate patients to improve adherence during hospitalization., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)