Search

Background Medication errors are a major public health concern that negatively impact patient safety and health outcomes. Effective and efficient medication error reporting systems and practices are imperative in reducing error incidence and severity. Objective The objectives were to quantify the incidence, nature and severity of medication errors, and to explore potential causality using a theoretical framework. Setting The study was conducted at Hamad Medical Corporation, the largest public funded academic healthcare center in the state of Qatar. Methods A retrospective review of medication error reports submitted to the Hamad Medical Corporation incident reporting system during 2015 to 2017. Data related to number of reports, reporter, medication, severity and outcomes were extracted. Reason's Accident Causation Model was used as a theoretical framework for identifying potential causality. Two researchers independently categorized errors as: active failures (e.g. forgetting to administer medication at scheduled time); error provoking conditions (e.g. medication prescribed by an unauthorized physician and administered to the patient); and latent failures (e.g. organizational factors, lack of resources). Main outcome measures Incidence, classes of medications, reporter, error severity and outcomes, potential causality. Results A total of 5103 reports provided sufficient information to be included in the study giving an estimated error incidence of 0.044% of prescribed medication items. Most of the reports (91.5%, n = 4667) were submitted by pharmacists and majority (87.9%, n = 4485) were prescribing errors. The most commonly reported medications were anti-infectives for systemic use (22.0%, n = 1123) followed by medications to treat nervous system disorders (17.2%, n = 876). Only three errors reported to have caused temporary harm requiring intervention while one contributed to or resulted in temporary harm requiring initial or prolonged hospitalization. In terms of potential causality of medication errors, the majority (91.5%, n = 4671) were classified as active failures. Conclusion Almost all reports were submitted by pharmacists, indicating likely under-reporting affecting the actual incidence. Effort is required to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the reporting system. The use of the theoretical framework allowed identification of potential causality, largely in relation to active failures, which can inform the basis of interventions to improve medication safety.

Purpose: The aim was to critically appraise, synthesise and present the evidence of medication errors amongst hospitalised patients in Middle Eastern countries, specifically prevalence, nature, severity and contributory factors., Methods: CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Pubmed and Science Direct were searched for studies published in English from 2000 to March 2018, with no exclusions. Study selection, quality assessment (using adapted STROBE checklists) and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative approach to data synthesis was adopted; data related to error causation were synthesised according to Reason's Accident Causation model., Results: Searching yielded 452 articles, which were reduced to 50 following removal of duplicates and screening of titles, abstracts and full-papers. Studies were largely from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Thirty-two studies quantified errors; definitions of 'medication error' were inconsistent as were approaches to data collection, severity assessment, outcome measures and analysis. Of 13 studies reporting medication errors per 'total number of medication orders'/ 'number of prescriptions', the median across all studies was 10% (IQR 2-35). Twenty-four studies reported contributory factors leading to errors. Synthesis according to Reason's model identified the most common being active failures, largely slips (10 studies); lapses (9) and mistakes (12); error-provoking conditions, particularly lack of knowledge (13) and insufficient staffing levels (13) and latent conditions, commonly heavy workload (9)., Conclusion: There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of studies from Middle Eastern countries. A standardised approach to quantifying medication errors' prevalence, severity, outcomes and contributory factors is warranted.

Aims: The aim of the study was to explore and compare junior doctors' perceptions of their self-efficacy in prescribing, their prescribing errors and the possible causes of those errors., Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was distributed to foundation doctors throughout Scotland, based on Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and Human Error Theory (HET)., Results: Five hundred and forty-eight questionnaires were completed (35.0% of the national cohort). F1s estimated a higher daytime error rate [median 6.7 (IQR 2-12.4)] than F2s [4.0 IQR (0-10) (P = 0.002)], calculated based on the total number of medicines prescribed. The majority of self-reported errors (250, 49.2%) resulted from unintentional actions. Interruptions and pressure from other staff were commonly cited causes of errors. F1s were more likely to report insufficient prescribing skills as a potential cause of error than F2s (P = 0.002). The prescribers did not believe that the outcomes of their errors were serious. F2s reported higher self-efficacy scores than F1s in most aspects of prescribing (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Foundation doctors were aware of their prescribing errors, yet were confident in their prescribing skills and apparently complacent about the potential consequences of prescribing errors. Error causation is multi-factorial often due to environmental factors, but with lack of knowledge also contributing. Therefore interventions are needed at all levels, including environmental changes, improving knowledge, providing feedback and changing attitudes towards the role of prescribing as a major influence on patient outcome., (© 2013 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Introduction: Prescribing errors are a major cause of patient safety incidents. Understanding the underlying factors is essential in developing interventions to address this problem. This study aimed to investigate the perceived causes of prescribing errors among foundation (junior) doctors in Scotland., Methods: In eight Scottish hospitals, data on prescribing errors were collected by ward pharmacists over a 14-month period. Foundation doctors responsible for making a prescribing error were interviewed about the perceived causes. Interview transcripts were analysed using content analysis and categorised into themes previously identified under Reason's Model of Accident Causation and Human Error., Results: 40 prescribers were interviewed about 100 specific errors. Multiple perceived causes for all types of error were identified and were categorised into five categories of error-producing conditions, (environment, team, individual, task and patient factors). Work environment was identified as an important aspect by all doctors, especially workload and time pressures. Team factors included multiple individuals and teams involved with a patient, poor communication, poor medicines reconciliation and documentation and following incorrect instructions from other members of the team. A further team factor was the assumption that another member of the team would identify any errors made. The most frequently noted individual factors were lack of personal knowledge and experience. The main task factor identified was poor availability of drug information at admission and the most frequently stated patient factor was complexity., Conclusions: This study has emphasised the complex nature of prescribing errors, and the wide range of error-producing conditions within hospitals including the work environment, team, task, individual and patient. Further work is now needed to develop and assess interventions that address these possible causes in order to reduce prescribing error rates.

Background: Prescribing errors are a major source of morbidity and mortality and represent a significant patient safety concern. Evidence suggests that trainee doctors are responsible for most prescribing errors. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing behavior may lead to effective interventions to reduce errors. Existing investigations of prescribing errors have been based on Human Error Theory but not on other relevant behavioral theories. The aim of this study was to apply a broad theory-based approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to investigate prescribing in the hospital context among a sample of trainee doctors., Method: Semistructured interviews, based on 12 theoretical domains, were conducted with 22 trainee doctors to explore views, opinions, and experiences of prescribing and prescribing errors. Content analysis was conducted, followed by applying relevance criteria and a novel stage of critical appraisal, to identify which theoretical domains could be targeted in interventions to improve prescribing., Results: Seven theoretical domains met the criteria of relevance: "social professional role and identity," "environmental context and resources," "social influences," "knowledge," "skills," "memory, attention, and decision making," and "behavioral regulation." From critical appraisal of the interview data, "beliefs about consequences" and "beliefs about capabilities" were also identified as potentially important domains. Interrelationships between domains were evident. Additionally, the data supported theoretical elaboration of the domain behavioral regulation., Conclusions: In this investigation of hospital-based prescribing, participants' attributions about causes of errors were used to identify domains that could be targeted in interventions to improve prescribing. In a departure from previous TDF practice, critical appraisal was used to identify additional domains that should also be targeted, despite participants' perceptions that they were not relevant to prescribing errors. These were beliefs about consequences and beliefs about capabilities. Specifically, in the light of the documented high error rate, beliefs that prescribing errors were not likely to have consequences for patients and that trainee doctors are capable of prescribing without error should also be targeted in an intervention. This study is the first to suggest critical appraisal for domain identification and to use interview data to propose theoretical elaborations and interrelationships between domains.

Aims: To determine whether, in retrospect, first year foundation (FY1) programme doctors believe that their undergraduate education in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (CPT) has prepared them to prescribe safely and rationally., Methods: This was a prospective questionnaire survey. Ninety FY1 doctors, employed in the Aberdeen Teaching Hospitals, participated., Results: Seventy-one percent of FY1 doctors completed the survey. Thirty percent of respondents rated their knowledge of CPT as poor or worse and only 8% as good; 74% reported having witnessed an adverse drug reaction (ADR) and 55% a drug-drug interaction, a number of which had resulted in patient morbidity or mortality. Many of these events were reported to have been avoidable or predictable with more extensive undergraduate and postgraduate training. Forty-two percent of respondents stated that they had not been taught enough about avoiding ADRs and 60% about avoiding drug-drug interactions during their undergraduate years. Over 75% of respondents reported high levels of confidence for the unsupervised use of warfarin, nonsteroidal analgesics and opiate analgesics. In retrospect, FY1 doctors would like more undergraduate teaching in prescribing for special patient groups, ADRs, drug interactions, together with CPT in their postgraduate teaching programme., Conclusions: FY1 doctors believe that their undergraduate and postgraduate training in CPT is insufficient to prescribe safely and rationally. This study adds further weight to the call for an increase in the training of junior doctors in the rational and safe use of medicines.