Search

Background : Of all adverse drug reactions, 35-45% are due to medication errors and would therefore be preventable. Thus, it is essential to implement effective strategies to prevent medication errors. However, it remains unclear whether medication reviews provide an additional benefit compared to medication reconciliation regarding medication safety. Aim : The present study aimed to evaluate whether medication reconciliation and medication reviews affect the incidence of preventable adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Method : Non-elective patients 65 years and above admitted to the hospital, taking at least one high-risk drug, were eligible for participation in a three-armed randomized controlled trial. One group went through the medication reconciliation process, a second group received a comprehensive medication review, including medication reconciliation, and the third group did not receive any pharmaceutical intervention (control group). The incidence of preventable adverse drug reactions during hospitalization was set as the primary endpoint. The severity of the preventable adverse drug reactions and the number and clinical relevance of drug-related problems and discrepancies were defined as secondary endpoints. Results : In 207 patients, 74 preventable adverse drug reactions were detected. Neither medication reconciliation nor medication reviews showed a significant impact on the incidence of preventable adverse drug reactions compared to the control group. However, medication reviews significantly reduced the severity of preventable adverse drug reactions (p=0.017). Conclusion : The current study results suggest that medication reviews may have an impact on a clinically relevant outcome by reducing the severity of preventable adverse drug reactions. A significant impact of medication reconciliation on clinically relevant outcomes could not be demonstrated. Based on the results of this study, when deciding on a pharmaceutical intervention comprehensive medication reviews should be preferred over sole medication reconciliation whenever possible.

Background: To improve patient safety, it is important that healthcare facilities learn from critical incidents. Tools such as reporting and learning systems and team meetings structure error management and promote learning from incidents. To enhance error management in ambulatory care practices, it is important to promote a climate of safety and ensure personnel share views on safety policies and procedures. In contrast to the hospital sector, little research has been dedicated to developing feasible approaches to supporting error management and safety climate in ambulatory care. In this study, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent intervention to address how error management and safety climate can be improved in ambulatory care practices., Methods: In a prospective 1-group pretest-posttest implementation study, we sought to encourage teams in German ambulatory practices to use proven methods such as guidelines, workshops, e-learning, (online) meetings, and e-mail newsletters. A pretest-posttest questionnaire was used to evaluate level and strength of safety climate and psychological behavioral determinants for systematic error management. Using 3 short surveys, we also assessed the state of error management in the participating practices. In semistructured interviews, we asked participants for their views on our intervention measures., Results: Overall, 184 ambulatory care practices nationwide agreed to participate. Level of safety climate and safety climate strength (rwg) improved significantly. Of psychological behavioral determinants, significant improvements could be seen in "action/coping planning" and "action control." Seventy-six percent of practices implemented a new reporting and learning system or modified their existing system. The exchange of information between practices also increased over time. Interviews showed that the introductory workshop and provided materials such as report forms or instructions for team meetings were regarded as helpful., Conclusions: A significant improvement in safety climate level and strength, as well as participants' knowledge of how to analyze critical incidents, derive preventive measures and develop concrete plans suggest that it is important to train practice teams, to provide practical tips and tools, and to facilitate the exchange of information between practices. Future randomized and controlled intervention trials should confirm the effectiveness of our multicomponent intervention.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered on 18. November 2019 in German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00019053., Competing Interests: This study was funded by the Innovation Fund of the German Federal Joint Committee (grant number 01VSF16021). The institutions of BSM, DL, D. Schütze, TB, M. Pommée, HM, KR, CT, RS, CG, M. Paulitsch, and FMG received the grant. The funder played no role in designing the study, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the strength of safety measures described in incident reports in outpatient care., Methods: An incident reporting project in German outpatient care included 184 medical practices with differing fields of specialization. The practices were invited to submit anonymous incident reports to the project team 3 times for 17 months. Using a 14-item coding scheme based on international recommendations, we deductively coded the incident reports and safety measures. Safety measures were classified as "strong" (likely to be effective and sustainable), "intermediate" (possibly effective and sustainable), or "weak" (less likely to be effective and sustainable)., Results: The practices submitted 245 incident reports. In 160 of them, 243 preventive measures were described, or an average of 1.5 per report. The number of documented measures varied from 1 in 67% to 4 in 5% of them. Four preventive measures (2%) were classified as strong, 37 (15%) as intermediate, and 202 (83%) as weak. The most frequently mentioned measures were "new procedure/policy" (n = 121) and "information/notification/warning" (n = 45)., Conclusions: The study provides examples of critical incidents in medical practices and for the first time examines the strength of ensuing measures introduced in outpatient care. Overall, the proportion of weak measures is (too) high, indicating that practices need more support in identifying strong measures., Competing Interests: The other authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ensuring medication accuracy during transitions in care is one of the five highly prevalent patient safety problems focused on within the World Health Organization High 5s Project. Medication reconciliation is a standardized patient care process that can be used to address this problem. The aim of the current study is to implement medication reconciliation in a German university hospital., Methods: The study was conducted at the Emergency Department of the University Hospital Aachen, Germany. All discrepancies between the Best Possible Medication History and the Admission Medication Order were documented and classified as documentation errors or medication errors. The type of error was also recorded. A negative binomial regression model was used to test several factors influencing the number of discrepancies., Results: The medications of 105 patients were reconciled. The mean number of discrepancies per patient was 4.6± 3.6, with a total of 298 medication errors and 189 documentation errors. The most common type of medication error was the omission of a drug (n=208; 69.8 %). In the negative binomial regression analysis, the care status (p=0.0015) as well as the number of preadmission drugs (p=0.0007) were significantly associated with medication errors., Discussion: A high number of discrepancies was detected and analysed. Patients admitted from nursing homes were less likely to have discrepancies in their medication reconciliation, perhaps because a structured documentation system for medications is already in place at nursing homes including error prone products (special dosage forms or food supplements)., Conclusions: In this study, medication reconciliation was implemented at a German full-care university hospital. The actual number of discrepancies observed strongly indicates the need for medication reconciliation at hospital admission., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Quality Problem: Despite its success in other industries, process standardization in health care has been slow to gain traction or to demonstrate a positive impact on the safety of care., Intervention: The High 5s project is a global patient safety initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO) to facilitate the development, implementation and evaluation of Standard Operating Protocols (SOPs) within a global learning community to achieve measurable, significant and sustainable reductions in challenging patient safety problems., Goals: The project seeks to answer two questions: (i) Is it feasible to implement standardized health care processes in individual hospitals, among multiple hospitals within individual countries and across country boundaries? (ii) If so, what is the impact of standardization on the safety problems that the project is targeting?, Method: The two key areas in which the High 5s project is innovative are its use of process standardization both in hospitals within a country and in multiple participating countries, and its carefully designed multi-pronged approach to evaluation., Status: Three SOPs-correct surgery, medication reconciliation, concentrated injectable medicines-have been developed and are being implemented and evaluated in multiple hospitals in seven participating countries. Nearly 5 years into the implementation, it is clear that this is just the beginning of what can be seen as an exercise in behavior management, asking whether health care workers can adapt their behaviors and environments to standardize care processes in widely varying hospital settings.

Quality of Internet health information is essential because it has the potential to benefit or harm a large number of people and it is therefore essential to provide consumers with some tools to aid them in assessing the nature of the information they are accessing and how they should use it without jeopardizing their relationship with their doctor. Organizations around the world are working on establishing standards of quality in the accreditation of health-related web content. For the full success of these initiatives, they must be equipped with technologies that enable the automation of the rating process and allow the continuous monitoring of labelled web sites alerting the labelling agency. In this paper we describe the European project MedIEQ (Quality Labelling of Medical Web Content Using Multilingual Information Extraction) that integrates the efforts of relevant organizations on medical quality labelling, multilingual information retrieval and extraction and semantic resources, from six different European countries (Spain, Germany, Greece, Finland, Czech Republic and Switzerland). The main objectives of MedIEQ are: first, to develop a scheme for the quality labelling of medical web content and provide the tools supporting the creation, maintenance and access of labelling data according to this scheme and second, to specify a methodology for the content analysis of medical web sites according to the MedIEQ scheme and develop the tools that will implement it.