Search

Copyright of Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology / Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología is the property of Sociedad Colombiana de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Prescribing errors that occur in hospitals have been a source of concern for decades. This narrative review describes some of the recent work in this field. There is considerable heterogeneity in definitions and methods used in research on prescribing errors. There are three definitions that are used most frequently (one for prescribing errors specifically and two for the broader arena of medication errors), although many others have also been used. Research methods used focus primarily on investigating either the prescribing process (such as errors in the dose prescribed) or the outcomes for the patient (such as preventable adverse drug events). This complicates attempts to calculate the overall prevalence or incidence of errors. Errors have been reported in handwritten descriptions of almost 15% and with electronic prescribing of up to 8% of orders. Errors are more likely to be identified on admission to hospital than at any other time (usually failure to continue ongoing medication) and errors of dose occur most commonly throughout the patients' stay. Although there is evidence that electronic prescribing reduces the number of errors, new types of errors also occur. The literature on causes of error shows some commonality with both handwritten and electronic prescribing but there are also causes that are unique to each. A greater understanding of the prevalence of the complex causal pathways found and the differences between the pathways of minor and severe errors is necessary. Such an understanding would underpin theoretically-based interventions to reduce the occurrence of prescribing errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medication errors (MEs) are the most common error in ICUs. In fact, 78% of all serious errors in ICUs are due to MEs. Therefore, detecting MEs has vital significance. The goal of this study was to investigate the frequency, type and consequences of different types of errors including prescribing, transcribing and administration errors in an ICU of a large teaching hospital. Disguised direct observation method was used to detect errors. A pharmacy student observed 307 doses in 46 days of 6 h shifts. Observation data were entered in a form designed specifically for this purpose. Two hundred and fourteen MEs were identified in 307 doses. This is equivalent to 69.7% of total error. The error breakdown is as follows: administration errors 43.1%, preparation errors 24.1% and transcription errors 2.5%. Administration techniques and monitoring were determined to be the most common errors of MEs. Nearly, 89.4% of errors did not result in imminent danger to the patients. In the ICU under this study, the most common MEs were administration and prescription errors. To improve the quality of care in the ICU and reduce MEs, efforts should be directed to correct the wrong administration technique and inappropriate monitoring. The use of pharmacy department in drug preparation instead of drug preparation by nurses, using protocols for IV infusions, providing equipment and trained personnel for therapeutic drug monitoring and measuring medications level may help reduce suboptimal drug prescription and administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the overall probability of error in preparing and administering intravenous medicines; to identify at which stage of the process an error is most likely to occur; and to determine the impact of error correction on the error probability. DESIGN: Systematic review and random-effects Bayesian conditional independence modelling. METHODS: Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies on intravenous medicines. The error rates of each stage were extracted. These, expert estimates, and error rates from generic tasks, were used in a Bayesian conditional independence model to find error ‘hot-spots.’ The main outcome measure was the probability of at least one error occurring during intravenous therapy. RESULTS: Nine published studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall probability of making at least one error in intravenous therapy was 0.73 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.54 to 0.90). If error-checking was introduced at each stage of the process, the overall rate fell to 0.22 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.31). Errors were most likely in the reconstitution step. Removing the reconstitution step by providing preprepared injections would reduce the overall error rate to 0.17 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous therapy is complex and error-prone. Error-checking at each stage could reduce the error probability. The use of preprepared injections may help by eliminating errors in the reconstitution of drug and diluent. However, it will be important to ensure that benefits are not outweighed by practical disadvantages such as an increase in selection errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Previous studies, both in hospitals and in institutions for clients with an intellectual disability (ID), have shown that medication errors at the administration stage are frequent, especially when medication has to be administered through an enteral feeding tube. In hospitals a specially designed intervention programme has proven to be effective in reducing these feeding tube-related medication errors, but the effect of such a programme within an institution for clients with an ID is unknown. Therefore, a study was designed to measure the influence of such an intervention programme on the number of medication administration errors in clients with an ID who also have enteral feeding tubes. Methods A before-after study design with disguised observation to document administration errors was used. The study was conducted from February to June 2008 within an institution for individuals with an ID in the Western part of The Netherlands. Included were clients with enteral feeding tubes. The intervention consisted of advice on medication administration through enteral feeding tubes by the pharmacist, a training programme and introduction of a ‘medication through tube’ box containing proper materials for crushing and suspending tablets. The outcome measure was the frequency of medication administration errors, comparing the pre-intervention period with the post-intervention period. Results A total of 245 medication administrations in six clients (by 23 nurse attendants) have been observed in the pre-intervention measurement period and 229 medication administrations in five clients (by 20 nurse attendants) have been observed in the post-intervention period. Before the intervention, 158 (64.5%) medication administration errors were observed, and after the intervention, this decreased to 69 (30.1%). Of all potential confounders and effect modifiers, only ‘medication dispensed in automated dispensing system (“robot”) packaging’ contributed to the multivariate model; effect modification was shown for this determinant. Multilevel analysis using this multivariate model resulted in an odds ratio of 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.13–0.71) for the error percentage in the post-intervention period compared with the pre-intervention period. Conclusions The intervention was found to be effective in an institution for clients with an ID. However, additional efforts are needed to reduce the proportion of administration errors which is still high after the intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim This paper reports a review of the empirical literature on factors that contribute to medication errors. Background Medication errors are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. This creates an imperative to reduce medication errors to deliver safe and ethical care to patients. Method The databases CINAHL, PubMed, Science Direct and Synergy were searched from 1988 to 2007 using the keywords medication errors, medication management, medication reconciliation, medication knowledge and mathematical skills, and reporting medication errors. Results Contributory factors to nursing medication errors are manifold, and include both individual and systems issues. These include medication reconciliation, the types of drug distribution system, the quality of prescriptions, and deviation from procedures including distractions during administration, excessive workloads, and nurse's knowledge of medications. Implications for nursing management It is imperative that managers implement strategies to reduce medication errors including the establishment of reporting mechanisms at international and national levels to include the evaluation and audit of practice at a local level. Systematic approaches to medication reconciliation can also reduce medication error significantly. Promoting consistency between health care professionals as to what constitutes medication error will contribute to increased accuracy and compliance in reporting of medication errors, thereby informing health care policies aimed at reducing the occurrence of medication errors. Acquisition and maintenance of mathematical competency for nurses in practice is an important issue in the prevention of medication error. The health care industry can benefit from learning from other high-risk industries such as aviation in the prevention and management of systems errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This prospective study was conducted in a teaching hospital to identify and analyze medical errors in pediatric practice. All admitted children underwent surveillance for medical errors. Of 457 errors identified in 1286 children, medication errors were 313 (68.5%), those related to treatment procedures were 62 (13.6%) and to clerical procedures 82 (17.9%). Physiological factors accounted for 125 (27.3%) of errors, equipment failures in 68 (14.9%), clerical mistakes 118 (25.8%), carelessness 98(21.4%) and lack of training for 48 (10.5%). Morbidity was nil in 375 (82%), mild in 49 (10.7%), moderate in 22 (4.8%) and severe in 11 (2.4%) errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Safety improvements are sometimes based on the premise that introducing measures to combat minor or no-harm incidents proportionately reduces the incidence of major incidents involving harm. This is in line with the principle of the Heinrich ratio, which asserts that there is a relatively fixed ratio between the incidence of no-harm incidents, minor incidents and major incidents. This principle has been advocated as a means of targeting and evaluating new safety initiatives. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Both thought experimentation and analysis of empirical data were used to examine the plausibility of this principle. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out using triangle plots to display the relative frequencies of the occurrence of safety incidents classified as minor, moderate or severe. FINDINGS: Thought experiments indicated that the principle of a fixed Heinrich ratio has a dubious logical foundation. Analysis of emergency department attendance and studies of medication errors demonstrated marked variation in the relative ratios of different outcomes. Triangle plots of UK road traffic accident data revealed a hitherto unrecognized systematic pattern of change that contradicts the principle of the Heinrich ratio. INTERPRETATION: This study of the principle of a fixed Heinrich ratio invalidates it: introducing measures to reduce the incidence of minor incidents will not inevitably reduce the incidence of major incidents pro rata. Any safety policies based on the assumption that the Heinrich ratio is true need to be rethought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Medication errors can result in harm, unless barriers to prevent them are present. Drug administration errors are less likely to be prevented, because they occur in the last stage of the drug distribution process. This is especially the case in non-alert patients, as patients often form the final barrier to prevention of errors. Therefore, a study was set up aimed at identifying the frequency of drug administration errors and determinants for these errors in an institution for individuals with intellectual disability (ID). Methods This observational study (‘disguised observation’) was conducted within an institution in the Netherlands caring for 2500 individuals with ID and lasted from October to December 2004 with a case control design for identifying determinants for errors. The institution consists of both day care units and living units (providing full-time care), located in different towns. For the study, five units from different towns were selected. Within each study unit, the administration of drugs to patients was observed for 2 weeks. In total, 953 drug administrations to 46 patients (25 male, mean age 25.8 years, range 2–73 years) were observed. Results With inclusion of wrong time errors, 242 administrations with at least one error were observed [frequency = 242/953 (25.4%)] and with exclusion 213 administrations with at least one error were observed [frequency = 213/953 (22.4%)]. Determinants associated with errors were routes of administration ‘oral by feeding tube’ (OR 189.66; 95% CI 46.16–779.24) and ‘inhalation’ (OR 9.98; 95% CI 4.78–20.80), the units ‘adult full-time care’ (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.05–4.35) and ‘children daytime care’ (OR 10.80; 95% CI 4.43–26.29) and the absence of a distribution robot (OR 4.0; 95% CI 2.67–5.95). None of the identified errors were reported to the voluntary reporting system. Conclusion This study shows that administration errors in an institution for individuals with ID are common and that they are not formally reported to the voluntary reporting system. Furthermore, it identified some determinants that may be the focus for future improvements aimed to reduce error frequency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our aim was to explore the attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals relating to the causes and reporting of medication errors in a UK intensive care unit. Medication errors were identified by the unit pharmacist and semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with 13 members of staff involved with 12 errors. Interviews were analysed using a model of human error theory. Staff identified many contributing factors, including poor communication and frequent interruptions. Organisational factors included lack of clarity on the responsibility of the second nurse's check for medication administration, lack of feedback on medication errors, and a common and accepted practice of administering medication without a complete medication order. Barriers to reporting included administrative paperwork and lack of encouragement by management. Greater feedback on medication errors seems essential to improve current practice and increase reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the results of studies in peer-reviewed journals for at least the last 10 years, that have addressed the incidence, severity and costs of medication errors with special attention given to errors arising at the interface between case settings. Special emphasis was paid to the causes and risk factors seen with medication errors in psychiatric case settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess on a multinational level the prevalence and corresponding factors of selected unintended events that compromise patient safety (sentinel events) in intensive care units (ICUs).Design: An observational, 24-h cross-sectional study of incidents in five representative categories.Setting: 205 ICUs worldwideMeasurements: Events were reported by intensive care unit staff members with the use of a structured questionnaire. Both ICU- and patient-related factors were assessed.Results: In 1,913 adult patients a total of 584 events affecting 391 patients were reported. During 24 h multiple errors related to medication occurred in 136 patients; unplanned dislodgement or inappropriate disconnection of lines, catheters, and drains in 158; equipment failure in 112; loss, obstruction or leakage of artificial airway in 47; and inappropriate turn-off of alarms in 17. Per 100 patient days, 38.8 (95% confidence interval 34.7-42.9) events were observed. In a multiple logistic regression with ICU as a random component, the following were associated with elevated odds for experiencing a sentinel event: any organ failure (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.28), a higher intensity in level of care (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.22), and time of exposure (odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.08).Conclusions: Sentinel events related to medication, indwelling lines, airway, and equipment failure in ICUs occur with considerable frequency. Although patient safety is recognised as a serious issue in many ICUs, there is an urgent need for development and implementation of strategies for prevention and early detection of errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A field study was performed in a hospital pharmacy aimed at identifying positive and negative influences on the process of detection of and further recovery from initial errors or other failures, thus avoiding negative consequences. Confidential reports and follow-up interviews provided data on 31 near-miss incidents involving such recovery processes. Analysis revealed that organizational culture with regard to following procedures needed reinforcement, that some procedures could be improved, that building in extra checks was worthwhile and that supporting unplanned recovery was essential for problems not covered by procedures. Guidance is given on how performance in recovery could be measured. A case is made for supporting recovery as an addition to prevention-based safety methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years medication error has justly received considerable attention, as it causes substantial mortality, morbidity and additional healthcare costs. Risk assessment models, adapted from commercial aviation and the oil and gas industries, are currently being developed for use in clinical pharmacy. The hospital pharmacist is best placed to oversee the quality of the entire drug distribution chain, from prescribing, drug choice, dispensing and preparation to the administration of drugs, and can fulfil a vital role in improving medication safety. Most elements of the drug distribution chain can be optimised; however, because comparative intervention studies are scarce, there is little scientific evidence available demonstrating improvements in medication safety through such interventions. Possible interventions aimed at reducing medication errors, such as developing methods for detection of patients with increased risk of adverse drug events, performing risk assessment in clinical pharmacy and optimising the drug distribution chain are discussed. Moreover, the specific role of the clinical pharmacist in improving medication safety is highlighted, both at an organisational level and in individual patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an increasing recognition that medication errors are causing a substantial global public health problem, as many result in harm to patients and increased costs to health providers. However, study of medication error is hampered by difficulty with definitions, research methods and study populations. Few doctors are as involved in the process of prescribing, selecting, preparing and giving drugs as anaesthetists, whether their practice is based in the operating theatre, critical care or pain management. Anaesthesia is now safe and routine, yet anaesthetists are not immune from making medication errors and the consequences of their mistakes may be more serious than those of doctors in other specialties. Steps are being taken to determine the extent of the problem of medication error in anaesthesia. New technology, theories of human error and lessons learnt from the nuclear, petrochemical and aviation industries are being used to tackle the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article by R. E. Ferner regarding methodological difficulties of detecting medication error, published in a previous issue.