Search

Introduction: Limited evidence exists regarding medication administration errors (MAEs) on general paediatric wards or associated risk factors exists. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify nurse, medication, and work-environment factors associated with MAEs among paediatric inpatients. Methods: This was a prospective, direct observational study of 298 nurses in a paediatric referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Trained observers recorded details of 5137 doses prepared and administered to 1530 children between 07:00 h and 22:00 h on weekdays and weekends. Observation data were compared with medication charts to identify errors. Clinical errors, potential severity and actual harm were assessed. Nurse characteristics (e.g. age, sex, experience), medication type (route, high-risk medications, use of solvent/diluent), and work variables (e.g. time of administration, weekday/weekend, use of an electronic medication management system [eMM], presence of a parent/carer) were collected. Multivariable models assessed MAE risk factors for any error, errors by route, potentially serious errors, and errors involving high-risk medication or causing actual harm. Results: Errors occurred in 37.0% (n = 1899; 95% confidence interval [CI] 35.7–38.3) of administrations, 25.8% (n = 489; 95% CI 23.8–27.9) of which were rated as potentially serious. Intravenous infusions and injections had high error rates (64.7% [n = 514], 95% CI 61.3–68.0; and 77.4% [n = 188], 95% CI 71.7–82.2, respectively). For intravenous injections, 59.7% (95% CI 53.4–65.6) had potentially serious errors. No nurse characteristics were associated with MAEs. Intravenous route, early morning and weekend administrations, patient age ≥ 11 years, oral medications requiring solvents/diluents and eMM use were all significant risk factors. MAEs causing actual harm were 45% lower using an eMM compared with paper charts. Conclusion: Medication error prevention strategies should target intravenous administrations and not neglect older children in hospital. Attention to nurses' work environments, including improved design and integration of medication technologies, is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electronic medication management (eMM) systems are designed to improve safety, but there is little evidence of their effectiveness in paediatrics. This study assesses the short-term (first 70 days of eMM use) and long-term (one-year) effectiveness of an eMM system to reduce prescribing errors, and their potential and actual harm. We use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) at a paediatric referral hospital, with eight clusters randomised for eMM implementation. We assess long-term effects from an additional random sample of medication orders one-year post-eMM. In the SWCRCT, errors that are potential adverse drug events (ADEs) are assessed for actual harm. The study comprises 35,260 medication orders for 4821 patients. Results show no significant change in overall prescribing error rates in the first 70 days of eMM use (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.05 [95%CI 0.92–1.21], but a 62% increase (IRR 1.62 [95%CI 1.28–2.04]) in potential ADEs suggesting immediate risks to safety. One-year post-eMM, errors decline by 36% (IRR 0.64 [95%CI 0.56–0.72]) and high-risk medication errors decrease by 33% (IRR 0.67 [95%CI 0.51–0.88]) compared to pre-eMM. In all periods, dose error rates are more than double that of other error types. Few errors are associated with actual harm, but 71% [95%CI 50–86%] of patients with harm experienced a dose error. In the short-term, eMM implementation shows no improvement in error rates, and an increase in some errors. A year after eMM error rates significantly decline suggesting long-term benefits. eMM optimisation should focus on reducing dose errors due to their high frequency and capacity to cause harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The risk of medication errors is high in paediatric inpatient settings. However, estimates of the prevalence of medication errors have not accounted for heterogeneity across studies in error identification methods and definitions, nor contextual differences across wards and the use of electronic or paper medication charts.Objective: Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide separate estimates of the prevalence of medication errors among paediatric inpatients, depending on hospital ward and the use of electronic or paper medication charts, that address differences in error identification methods and definitions.Methods: We systematically searched five databases to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2018 that assessed medication error rates by medication chart audit, direct observation or a combination of methods.Results: We identified 71 studies, 19 involved paediatric wards using electronic charts. Most studies assessed prescribing errors with few studies assessing administration errors. Estimates varied by ward type. Studies of paediatric wards using electronic charts generally reported a reduced error prevalence compared to those using paper, although there were some inconsistencies. Error detection methods impacted the rate of administration errors in studies of multiple wards, however, no other difference was found. Definition of medication error did not have a consistent impact on reported error rates.Conclusions: Medication errors are a frequent occurrence in paediatric inpatient settings, particularly in intensive care wards and emergency departments. Hospitals using electronic charts tended to have a lower rate of medication errors compared to those using paper charts. Future research employing controlled designs is needed to determine the true impact of electronic charts and other interventions on medication errors and associated harm among hospitalized children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classifying harm associated with a medication error can be time consuming and labour intensive and limited studies undertake this step. There is no standardised process, and few studies that report harm assessment provide adequate methods to allow for study replication. Studies typically mention that a clinical review panel classified patient harm and provide a reference to a classification tool. Moreover, in many studies it is unclear whether potential or actual harm was classified as studies refer only to 'error severity'. The tools used to categorise the severity of patient harm vary widely across studies and few have been assessed for inter-rater reliability and criterion validity. In this paper, we describe the systematic process we undertook to synthesise the defining elements and strengths, while mitigating the limitations, of existing harm classification tools to derive the Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC). This new tool provides a harm classification for use across clinical and research settings. The provision of an explicit process for its application and guiding category descriptors are designed to reduce the risk of misclassification and produce results that are comparable across studies. As the World Health Organisation embarks on its international safety challenge of reducing medication-related harm by 50%, accompanying methodological advances are required to measure progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]