A controlled trial of smart infusion pumps to improve medication safety in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous medications are vital during inpatient management. Errors associated with the administration of medications through intravenous infusion pumps to critically ill patients can result in adverse drug events. We sought to assess the impact of smart pumps with integrated decision support software on the incidence and nature of medication errors and adverse drug events. DESIGN: We performed a prospective, randomized time-series trial and compared the serious medication error rate between intervention (decision support on) and control (decision support off) periods. Serious medication errors included both near-misses and preventable adverse drug events. Pump software produced log reports to help identify potential events. Events were presented to physicians for rating of event type, preventability, and severity. SETTING: Cardiac surgical intensive care and step-down units between February and December 2002. PATIENTS: Pump data were available for 744 cardiac surgery admissions. INTERVENTIONS: Decision support during medication administration provided feedback including alerts, reminders, and unit-specific drug rate limits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We found a total of 180 serious medication errors, including 14 and 11 preventable adverse drug events and 73 and 82 nonintercepted potential adverse drug events in the control and intervention periods, respectively. The serious medication error rates in the control and intervention periods were 2.03 and 2.41 per 100 patient-pump-days, respectively (p = .124). We also found numerous opportunities for safety improvement. Violations of infusion practice during the intervention periods included 571 (25%) bypasses of the drug library. Medications were also frequently administered without documentation of physician orders in both periods (n = 823; 7.7%). CONCLUSION: Intravenous medication errors and adverse drug events were frequent and could be detected using smart pumps. We found no measurable impact on the serious medication error rate, likely in part due to poor compliance. Although smart pumps have great promise, technological and nursing behavioral factors must be addressed if these pumps are to achieve their potential for improving medication safety.     

Adverse effects and medication errors: incidence and role of the organization of drug distribution

The true incidence of adverse drug events is controversial and there are few data concerning the percentage of potentially preventable adverse drug events. Over 2 months, in two internal medicine units, we asked the staff to report adverse drug events. All incidents were evaluated: adverse drug events (preventable and non-preventable) and potential adverse drug events (non-intercepted potential adverse drug events and intercepted potential adverse drug events). The severity, the stage in the process at which the error occurred and the type of error were evaluated by a physician reviewer. Over the 240 admissions, the incidence of adverse drug events is 18 per 1000 patient-days. The system design caused 77 per cent of the incidents. The medication errors occurred at all stages from ordering to administration. Adverse drug events resulting in medication errors (n = 22) were more serious than non-preventable adverse drug events (n = 26) (p = 0.003). A prevention strategy by pharmacovigilance centres (Centres Régionaux de Pharmacovigilance) should target all stages of the drug delivery process.     

Errors in the administration of intravenous medication in Brazilian hospitals

Aim. To verify the frequency of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous medication in three Brazilian hospitals in the State of Bahia. Background. The administration of intravenous medications constitutes a central activity in Brazilian nursing. Errors in performing this activity may result in irreparable damage to patients and may compromise the quality of care. Design. Cross‐sectional study, conducted in three hospitals in the State of Bahia, Brazil. Methods. Direct observation of the nursing staff (nurse technicians, auxiliary nurses and nurse attendants), preparing and administering intravenous medication. Results. When preparing medication, wrong patient error did not occur in any of the three hospitals, whereas omission dose was the most frequent error in all study sites. When administering medication, the most frequent errors in the three hospitals were wrong dose and omission dose. Conclusions. The rates of error found are considered low compared with similar studies. The most frequent types of errors were wrong dose and omission dose. The hospitals studied showed different results with the smallest rates of errors occurring in hospital 1 that presented the best working conditions. Relevance to clinical practice. Studies such as this one have the potential to improve the quality of care.     

护士发生给药错误的特点及原因分析

目的分析护士给药错误发生的特点和原因,探讨如何预防给药错误的发生。方法回顾性分析某三级甲等医院2010年至2012年自愿非惩罚报告系统中上报的给药错误137例,分析护士给药错误的类别、特点及原因。结果给药错误主要发生在综合科室占31.39%,外科占24.82%;患者身份识别错误、药物遗漏、给药技术性错误是给药错误的主要类别;发生给药错误的药物种类,占前2位的分别是抗生素和心血管系统用药;在发生给药错误的原因中,操作过程中没有认真执行查对制度占48.91%。结论护理管理者应根据给药错误的特点制订相应的管理措施,加强护士药物知识的培训,严格执行查对制度,降低给药错误的发生。     

Medication errors resulting from drug preparation and administration

BACKGROUND: The risks associated with drug use are not confined to adverse reactions. Failures can occur in the process of drug prescribing, dispensing and administration. Such preventable events are termed 'medication errors'. Errors in preparation and administration, the last step in the medication process, constitute a good indicator of the quality of the medication process, and are irredeemable. METHODS: A protocol for measuring errors in the preparation and administration of medication has been developed and used in an internal medicine department at the University Hospital of Dijon. RESULTS: This protocol has enabled several different rates of medication errors to be determined depending on the calculation approach used: 15.1% with respect to interventions by nurses, 41% relating to the total number of opportunities for error, and 8.8% with respect to a methodological problem analysed in the study. The potential clinical significance, incidence and causes of errors during the medication process were also analysed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Medical errors are not detected in our health system and are thus not preventable. Their consequences are incompatible with a well organised treatment process. The rate of medication errors is therefore a good indicator of the quality of the medication system in a hospital that is following the current steps for risk reduction and accreditation.     

Quantification and classification of errors associated with hand-repackaging of medications in long-term care facilities in Germany

Objective: The aim of this study was to quantify and classify errors associated with the repackaging of residents' medications in long-term care facilities in Germany.Methods: This was a prospective 8-week study conducted in 3 long-term care facilities. Pill organizers, each of which contained all repackaged solid oral dosage forms of long-term medications for a particular resident for an entire day, were inspected and checked against residents' medication sheets by the investigator-pharmacist. On agreement between the pharmacist and the registered nurse responsible for residents' medications, all errors were rectified before medications were administered. The primary study measure was the overall rate of incorrectly repackaged medications relative to all repackaged medications. Secondary measures were the proportion of all pill organizers with medication errors and the proportion of residents who would have been affected by these errors. Errors were categorized by type as follows: wrong time of administration, wrong dose, wrong medication, omission of a medication, extra dose, incorrect halving of tablets, and damaged medication.Results: One hundred ninety-six residents were included in the study, representing 8798 daily pill organizers and 48,512 inspected medications. Residents received a mean of 5.4 solid oral dosage forms of long-term medications per day. Six hundred forty-five errors were detected, for an error rate of 1.3%; the errors involved 7.3% of daily pill organizers and 53.0% of residents. The largest proportion of errors involved incorrect halving of tablets (49.1%), followed by omission of a medication (22.0%), extra dose (9.8%), wrong time of administration (8.4%), damaged medication (6.4%), wrong dose (4.2%), and wrong medication (0.2%). These results may underestimate true rates of repackaging errors across long-term care facilities in Germany, as the conditions in the 3 facilities in this study were near-optimal in terms of the environment, process, and quality of repackaging.Conclusions: Among 48,512 medications inspected over 8 weeks in 3 German long-term care facilities, the rate of repackaging errors was 1.3%, involving 7.3% of daily pill organizers and the medications of 53.00% of residents. The largest proportion of errors involved incorrect halving of tablets.     

Repeat medication errors in nursing homes: Contributing factors and their association with patient harm

Background: Medication errors are highly prevalent in long-term care facilities and are responsible for preventable injury. Repeat medication errors, or identical events occurring multiple times in the same patient, may be particularly preventable.Objectives: This study assessed the factors that contribute to repeat medication errors and the association between repeat medication errors and patient harm.Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, medication error reports submitted by licensed nursing homes to North Carolina's Medication Error Quality Initiative-Individual Error Web-based incident reporting system were analyzed for fiscal years 2006–2008. When reporting errors, the sites were asked whether the event was identically repeated within the same patient. Repeat medication errors were defined as identical events in terms of patient characteristics, drug involved, error type, potential cause, phase of the medication care process, and personnel involved. Repeat errors were compared with nonrepeat errors. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore whether certain patient or error characteristics were related to a higher likelihood of repeat errors, and a similar analysis was used to explore whether repeat errors were related to patient harm.Results: Of the total 15,037 errors reported by 294 unique nursing homes, 5615 (37.3%) were repeated one or more times. Among the repeat errors, the associated event within each error was repeated a mean (SD) of 10.7 (14.3) times. Wrong dosage (65.1% [3654/5615]) and wrong administration (10.2% [571/5615]) were the most frequent repeated events. In multivariate analysis, repeat errors occurred less frequently among younger residents (aged <75 years) than among older residents (aged ≥75 years) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79–0.93) and among residents able to direct their own care compared with cognitively impaired residents (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81–0.95). Patient harm was reported in only 1.2% (68/5615) of repeat errors and 0.6% (55/9422) of non-repeat errors. A multivariate analysis of patient harm found that repeat errors were more likely to be harmful than were nonrepeat errors (OR = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.43–3.11).Conclusions: Repeat medication errors in nursing homes are a common occurrence and have greater odds of being associated with harm than do nonrepeat errors. Future patient-safety research should focus on factors related to repeat errors.     

The epidemiology of preventable adverse drug events: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND: A growing amount of data suggests that adverse drug events (ADEs) in hospital settings are frequent and result in substantial harm. Even though prevention is where efforts must be directed, only a few studies have reported on the preventability of these events. The objective of this article is to review the literature of ADEs and their preventability, and to report on their incidences, characteristics, risk factors, costs and prevention strategies. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and Embase for literature published between 1980 and June 2002. All articles reporting primary data on the incidences of ADEs and their preventability in hospital settings were included. RESULTS: In the 8 articles retrieved the incidences of ADEs were between 0.7% and 6.5% of hospitalized patients; in up to 56.6% these events were judged to be preventable. Furthermore, ADEs accounted for 2.4% to 4.1% of admissions to inpatient facilities; preventability was stated in up to 69.0% of these events. A substantial body of preventable ADEs, the so-called medication errors, occur in the process of ordering, transcribing, dispensing and administrating the drugs. Further investigations into medication errors at the ordering stage reveal their occurrence in up to 57.0 per 1,000 orders. Between 18.7% and 57.7% of those errors have the potential for harm, but only in about 1% they result in preventable ADEs. IMPLICATIONS: The detection of errors having only the potential for harm by means of computerized surveillance has shown to be a useful technique in order to understand and prevent ADEs. Apart from the use of sophisticated computer techniques the participation of pharmacists in the drug prescribing process results in a tremendous error reduction. The greatest task in changing the health care system into a system with safety as its first priority is to create a culture of constant learning from mistakes among health care professionals. The appreciation of the health care teams' ideas and perceptions for improvement, and their implementation through small improvement cycles, may represent the leading strength in error reduction and health care improvement.     

彩色标签对麻醉危机事件处理中用药差错与时间的影响

目的评价彩色标签对麻醉危机事件处理中用药差错发生率与用药时间的影响。方法采用二阶段交叉试验设计,选择20名麻醉科一线实习医生,年龄21~24岁,随机分为A组和B组,每组10人,分别使用彩色标签或传统标签标记药物对模拟人进行麻醉危机模拟事件演练;洗脱4周后,2组交换标签进行第二阶段模拟演练。在麻醉系模拟实验中心模拟真实手术室,采集演练视频,分析用药差错率及用药时间;演练结束后,针对发生用药差错的医生进行调查问卷,以了解用药差错的促成因素。结果使用彩色标签时,有12名(60%)一线实习医生至少发生一次用药差错;使用传统标签时,有16名(80%)一线实习医生至少发生一次用药差错(P>0.05)。本研究中共发生44次(8.40%)用药差错,主要为遗漏和用药剂量错误,分别为18次(40.9%)和15次(34.1%);使用彩色标签与传统标签时的平均用药差错率分别为7.2%(95%CI 4.0%~10.3%)和9.8%(95%CI 6.2%~13.5%),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。用药差错促成因素分析,导致用药差错的最主要因素为匆忙(29.41%)、粗心大意(17.65%)和操作不规范(13.73%)。使用不同标签时的用药时间比较,彩色标签时的用药时间(18.4±1.3)s显著快于使用传统标签(26.3±1.6)s(P<0.05)。结论各种药品准备完善下,使用彩色标签可明显缩短麻醉危机事件处理中的用药时间,但未能降低一线医生的差错发生率。     

Medication errors during medical emergencies in a large, tertiary care, academic medical center

Purpose

Evaluate the rate, type and severity of medication errors occurring during Medical Emergency Team (MET) care at a large, tertiary-care, academic medical center.

Methods

A prospective, observational evaluation of 50 patients that required MET care was conducted. Data on medication use were collected using a direct-observation method whereby an observer documented drug information such as drug, dose, frequency, rate of administration and administration technique. Subsequently, a team of three clinicians assessed rate, type and severity of medication errors using definitions consistent with United States Pharmacopeia MEDMARX system. Severity was assessed on a scale of minor, moderate and severe.

Results

One hundred eighty six doses were observed for 36 different medications. A total of 296 errors were identified; of these 196 errors (66%) were inappropriate aseptic technique. Of the remaining 100 errors, 46% were prescribing errors, 28% administration technique errors, 14% mislabeling errors, 10% drug preparation errors and 2% improper dose prescribing. Examples included: (1) prescribing errors, (2) administering wrong doses, (3) mislabeling, and (4) wrong administration technique such as not flushing intravenous medication through intravenous access. The rate of medication administration errors was 1.6 errors/dose including aseptic technique and 0.5 errors/dose excluding aseptic technique. A notable portion (14%) of errors was considered at least moderate in severity.

Conclusions

One out of 2 doses was administered in error after errors of using inappropriate aseptic technique were excluded. There is a need for education and systematic changes to prevent medication errors during medical emergencies as an effort to avoid harm.     

信息化给药闭环管理模式对护理给药不良事件的影响

目的调查信息化给药闭环管理模式对护理给药不良事件的影响,并对实施信息化给药闭环管理模式后的46例护理给药不良事件进行分析,了解事件发生的特点,并制订对策,以减少护理给药错误的发生。方法回顾性分析厦门大学附属第一医院实施信息化给药闭环管理后(2018年1—12月)系统上报的46起护理给药不良事件,对46起事件从差错的类别、原因、环节等方面进行分析,并将各类事件与信息化给药闭环系统实施前的2017年全年发生的护理给药不良事件进行比较。结果实施给药闭环管理后,各类给药不良事件与2017年比较有所降低,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),其中身份识别错误17起(17/46,36.96%),给药遗漏8起(8/46,17.39%),剂量和途径错误分别7起(7/46,15.22%)和5起(5/46,10.87%)。发生给药差错的环节主要为给药环节(26起)和摆药环节(14起)。结论给药不良事件最常发生在给药环节,而身份错误是最常见的错误类型,护理管理者应针对护理给药错误的种类及特点制订针对性的预防措施,持续监控并提高给药闭环扫码率,加强护士培训,做好给药及摆药时的查对。     

Medication‐administration errors in an urban mental health hospital: A direct observation study

In the present study, we aimed to identify the incidence, type, and potential clinical consequence of medication‐administration errors made in a mental health hospital, and to investigate factors that might increase the risk of error. A prospective, direct observational technique was used to collect data from nurse medication rounds on each of the hospital's 43 inpatient wards. Regression analysis was used to identify potential error predictors. During the 172 medication rounds observed, 139 errors were detected in 4177 (3.3%) opportunities. The most common error was incorrect dose omission (52/139, 37%). Other common errors included incorrect dose (25/139, 18%), incorrect form (16/139, 12%), and incorrect time (12/139, 9%). Fifteen (11%) of the errors were of serious clinical severity; the rest were of negligible or minor severity. Factors that increased the risk of error included the nurse interrupting the medication round to attend to another activity, an increased number of ‘when required’ doses of medication administered, a higher number of patients on the ward, and an increased number of doses of medication due. These findings suggest that providers of inpatient mental health‐care services should adopt medicine‐administration systems that minimize task interruption and the use of ‘when required’ medication, as well as taking steps to reduce nursing workload.     

Medication errors at the administration stage in an intensive care unit

Objective: To assess the type, frequency and potential clinical significance of medication-administration errors. Design: Prospective study using the observation technique as described by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists but eliminating the disguised aspect. Setting: Medical intensive care unit (ICU) in a university hospital. Patients and participants: 2009 medication administration interventions by nurses. Interventions: Pharmacist-performed observation of preparation and administration of medication by nurses, comparison with the original medical order and comparison with the data available in the literature. Measurements and results: 132 (6.6 % of 2009 observed events) errors were detected. Their distribution is as follows: 41 dose errors, 29 wrong rate, 24 wrong preparation technique, 19 physicochemical incompatibility, 10 wrong administration technique and 9 wrong time errors. No fatal errors were observed, but 26 of 132 errors were potentially life-threatening and 55 potentially significant. Conclusion: According to this first observation-based study of medication administration errors in a European ICU, these errors were due to deficiencies in the overall organisation of the hospital medication track, in patient follow-up and in staff training. Received: 18 May 1998 Accepted: 4 December 1998     

Examining medication errors in a tertiary hospital

This project examined the accuracy of medication administration by nurses at a large tertiary hospital. Registered nurses were prepared to directly observe medication administration. Observations were made of 1514 doses administered by 30 nurses on 3 units, on day and evening shifts. Few (5%) medication errors were found. The most frequent errors were wrong technique, wrong time, and omission. Results suggest examination of medication policies, assessment of medication administration competency, and targeted in-service education.     

Using snowball sampling method with nurses to understand medication administration errors

Aims and objectives. We aimed to encourage nurses to release information about drug administration errors to increase understanding of error‐related circumstances and to identify high‐alert situations. Background. Drug administration errors represent the majority of medication errors, but errors are underreported. Effective ways are lacking to encourage nurses to actively report errors. Methods. Snowball sampling was conducted to recruit participants. A semi‐structured questionnaire was used to record types of error, hospital and nurse backgrounds, patient consequences, error discovery mechanisms and reporting rates. Results. Eighty‐five nurses participated, reporting 328 administration errors (259 actual, 69 near misses). Most errors occurred in medical surgical wards of teaching hospitals, during day shifts, committed by nurses working fewer than two years. Leading errors were wrong drugs and doses, each accounting for about one‐third of total errors. Among 259 actual errors, 83·8% resulted in no adverse effects; among remaining 16·2%, 6·6% had mild consequences and 9·6% had serious consequences (severe reaction, coma, death). Actual errors and near misses were discovered mainly through double‐check procedures by colleagues and nurses responsible for errors; reporting rates were 62·5% (162/259) vs. 50·7% (35/69) and only 3·5% (9/259) vs. 0% (0/69) were disclosed to patients and families. High‐alert situations included administration of 15% KCl, insulin and Pitocin; using intravenous pumps; and implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Conclusions. Snowball sampling proved to be an effective way to encourage nurses to release details concerning medication errors. Using empirical data, we identified high‐alert situations. Strategies for reducing drug administration errors by nurses are suggested. Relevance to clinical practice. Survey results suggest that nurses should double check medication administration in known high‐alert situations. Nursing management can use snowball sampling to gather error details from nurses in a non‐reprimanding atmosphere, helping to establish standard operational procedures for known high‐alert situations.     

An Objective Analysis of Process Errors in Trauma Resuscitations

OBJECTIVE: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. METHODS: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. RESULTS: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2. 4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5. 1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, beside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.