Search

Voluntary event reporting systems continue to be the most common method used to identify adverse events in most US hospitals; however, this method fails to capture more than 90% of adverse drug events (ADEs). The purpose of this study is to examine which medication-related triggers have the highest positive predictive values (PPV) for detecting ADEs at a large academic medical centre.A 1-year, single-centre, retrospective quality improvement study was conducted to assess the PPV of four medication-related triggers: flumazenil, naloxone, glucose70 mg/dL or dextrose 50%. Retrospective chart review was conducted on a random sample of eligible patients to establish if an ADE occurred and determine its preventability. Assessed triggers were also compared against the hospital's voluntary event reporting system to determine whether the events were previously reported.A total of 161 triggers were reviewed. PPV values for detection of ADEs were 0.55, 0.58, 0.76 and 0.68 for flumazenil, naloxone, glucose70 mg/dL and dextrose 50%, respectively. PPV values for detection of preventable ADEs were 0.09, 0.16, 0.32 and 0.34 for flumazenil, naloxone, glucose70 mg/dL and dextrose 50%, respectively. Of the 107 ADEs identified, three events were reported through the hospital's voluntary event reporting system (2.8%).Trigger tools successfully detected both preventable and non-preventable ADEs. Events detected using trigger tools are unlikely to be reported through voluntary event reporting systems; therefore, trigger tools can serve as a useful adjunct for adverse event detection.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify potential failure points in a new chemotherapy preparation technology and to implement changes that prevent or minimize the consequences of those failures before they occur using the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) approach. Methods An FMEA was conducted by a team of medication safety pharmacists, oncology pharmacists and technicians, leadership from informatics, investigational drug, and medication safety services, and representatives from the technology vendor. Failure modes were scored using both Risk Priority Number (RPN) and Risk Hazard Index (RHI) scores. Results The chemotherapy preparation workflow was defined in a 41-step process with 16 failure modes. The RPN and RHI scores were identical for each failure mode because all failure modes were considered detectable. Five failure modes, all attributable to user error, were deemed to pose the highest risk. Mitigation strategies and system changes were identified for 2 failure modes, with subsequent system modifications resulting in reduced risk. Conclusion The FMEA was a useful tool for risk mitigation and workflow optimization prior to implementation of an intravenous compounding technology. The process of conducting this study served as a collaborative and proactive approach to reducing the potential for medication errors upon adoption of new technology into the chemotherapy preparation process.

Purpose The opioid epidemic continues to result in significant morbidity and mortality even within hospitals where opioids are the second most common cause of adverse events. Opioid stewardship represents one model for hospitals to promote safe and rational prescribing of opioids to mitigate preventable adverse events in alliance with new Joint Commission standards. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of current hospital practices to improve opioid use. Methods A cross-sectional survey of hospital best practices for opioid use was electronically distributed via electronic listservs in March 2018 to examine the presence of an opioid stewardship program and related practices, including formulary restrictions, specialist involvement for high-risk patients, types of risk factors screened, and educational activities. Results Among 133 included hospitals, 23% reported a stewardship program and 14% reported a prospective screening process to identify patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). Among those with a prospective screening process, there was variability in ORAE risk factor screening. Formulary restrictions were dependent on specific opioids and formulations. Patient-controlled analgesia was restricted at 45% of hospitals. Most hospitals reported having a pain management service (90%) and a palliative care service providing pain management (67%). Conclusion The absence of opioid stewardship and prospectively screening ORAEs represents a gap in current practice at surveyed hospitals. Hospitals have an opportunity to implement and refine best practices such as access to pain management specialists, use of formulary restrictions, and retrospective and prospective monitoring of adverse events to improve opioid use.

We previously found a high rate of errors in the administration of intravenous medications using smart infusion pumps. An infusion safety intervention bundle was developed in response to the high rate of identified errors. A before–after observational study with a prospective point-prevalence approach was conducted in nine hospitals to measure the preliminary effects of the intervention. Primary outcome measures were overall errors and medication errors, with the secondary outcome defined as potentially harmful error rates. We assessed a total of 418 patients with 972 medication administrations in the pre-intervention period and 422 patients with 1059 medication administrations in the post-intervention period. The overall error rate fell from 146 to 123 per 100 medication administrations (p

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of performance transparency and individualized feedback on pharmacy technician compliance with barcode verification technology during inpatient order preparation. Methods: Following the incorporation of barcode scanning technology into the workflow of pharmacy staff, a multiphasic intervention was employed to promote its use. The intervention included verbal feedback and publically posting performance metrics to increase accountability. An interrupted time-series analysis was conducted to ascertain trends and levels in the percent of orders that were dispensed using barcode verification, before and after the study intervention. Analyses were conducted by shift and overall for pharmacy workers in a single satellite pharmacy. Results: A significant increase in percent scanned orders was observed immediately following the intervention in our analysis of all pharmacy workers (+14.4%; P = .045; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-28.4). In the analysis of each shift, statistically significant increases in percent scanned orders were observed immediately following the intervention for both the evening shift (+5.1%; P = .024; 95% CI: 0.70-9.6) and the night shift (+29.9%; P = .025; 95% CI: 3.9-55.9), but not the day shift (+2.6; P = .707; 95% CI: −11.1 to 16.2). Conclusion: Increasing transparency of individual and team performance metrics in conjunction with targeted feedback is an effective intervention to improve compliance with barcode scanning technology.

Limited information exists regarding medication errors and trainees (students or residents). Yet during the experiential education component of their training, learners are expected to assume significant responsibilities in the medication use process. This commentary addresses both trainees and organization leaders on medication safety practices and the incorporation of learners into the organization’s medication safety culture.