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: CIRSmedical.de is a publicly accessible, cross-institutional reporting and learning system, which is organized by the German Agency for Quality in Medicine (ÄZQ). CIRSmedical.de has existed since 2005 and has published more than 6,000 event reports. Up to now it has been common practice to analyse these reports in detail or carry out systematic evaluations focusing on specific topics. A systematic evaluation of all case reports has not yet been conducted. Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an analysis strategy from the field of Artificial Intelligence for indexing texts. The examination of case reports using NLP was carried out to describe the characteristics of event reports and comments., Materials and Methods: For this analysis 6,480 case reports from CIRSmedical.de (as of December 10, 2019) were provided by the ÄZQ as Excel files. Several free text fields were included in the analysis as well as the feedback of the CIRS team (expert commentary). Text lengths, reporting behaviour, sentiment values and keywords were examined. The algorithms for the analysis were developed with the programming language Python and the corresponding libraries NLTK and SpaCy., Results: The comparison of report lengths depending on the different subject groups presented a heterogeneous picture, in terms of both the number of reports and the number of words. There are more than 4,000 reports from the field of anaesthesiology, whereby text lengths vary particularly strongly with a right-skewed distribution. There are only a few reports from the field of psychotherapy, and these are also very short. The different professional groups (nurses, doctors, other staff) write reports of about the same length. Reports and expert commentaries also differ in terms of sentiment values. Due to the length of the comments, they are more negative in terms of sentiment. Keywords can be identified but show a high heterogeneity., Discussion: Systematic analysis using NLP allows for the description of text properties in event reports and comments. It is now possible to draw a conclusion about the reporters' intention, focus and mood when they report in CIRS. The sentiment analysis is an indication of the mood which the texts convey, both as a report and as a commentary. Text length analysis draws attention to different problems and tendencies: event reports are usually much shorter. Texts that are too short, however, run the risk that the information will not be readily usable for analysis. Comments are often longer, but here one faces the opposite problem: texts that are too long may not be read. The examination of texts by means of NLP helps to rethink the reason for and the form of input, both when reporting and when commenting. It is a first step in the automatic, supportive classification of texts and an improvement of the interaction between reporters and the system., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)