Comparison of medication policies to guide nursing practice across seven Victorian health services

Understanding an epidemiological view of a retrospective audit of medication errors in an intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Medication errors in the intensive care setting continue to occur at significant rates and are often associated with adverse events and potentially life-threatening repercussions.

AIM/OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to (i) determine the frequency and severity of medication errors reported in the incident management reporting system; (ii) examine the antecedent events, their nature, the circumstances, risk factors, and contributing factors leading to medication errors; and (iii) identify strategies to improve medication safety in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHOD

A retrospective, exploratory, descriptive design was selected. Retrospective data were collected from the incident report management system and electronic medical records over a 13-month period from a major metropolitan teaching hospital ICU.

RESULTS

A total of 162 medication errors were reported during a 13-month period, of which, 150 were eligible for inclusion. Most medication errors occurred during the administration (89.4%) and dispensing phases (23.3%). The highest reported errors included incorrect doses (25.3%), incorrect medications (12.7%), omissions (10.7%), and documentation errors (9.3%). Narcotic analgesics (20%), anaesthetics (13.3%), and immunomodifiers (10.7%) were the most frequently reported medication classes associated with medication errors. Prevention strategies were found to be focussed on active errors (67.7%) as opposed to latent errors (32.3%) and included various and infrequent levels of education and follow-up. Active antecedent events included action-based errors (39%) and rule-based errors (29.5%), whereas latent antecedent events were most associated with a breakdown in system safety (39.3%) and education (25%).

CONCLUSION

This study presents an epidemiological view and understanding of medication errors in an Australian ICU. This study highlighted the preventable nature of most medication errors in this study. Improving administration-checking procedures would prevent the occurrence of many medication errors. Approaches aimed at both individual- and organisational-level improvements are recommended to address administration errors and inconsistent medication-checking procedures. Areas for further research include determining the most effective system developments for improving administration-checking procedures and verifying the risk and prevalence of immunomodifier administration errors in the ICU as this is an area not reported previously in the literature. In addition, the impact of single- versus two-person checking procedures on medication errors in the ICU should be prioritised to address current evidence gaps.

Cross-sectional evaluation of pharmaceutical care competences in nurse education: how well do curricula prepare students of different educational levels?

BACKGROUND

Nurses play an important role in interprofessional pharmaceutical care. Curricula related to pharmaceutical care, however, vary a lot. Mapping the presence of pharmaceutical care related domains and competences in nurse educational programs can lead to a better understanding of the extent to which curricula fit expectations of the labour market. The aim of this study was to describe 1) the presence of pharmaceutical care oriented content in nursing curricula at different educational levels and 2) nursing students' perceived readiness to provide nurse pharmaceutical care in practice.

METHODS

A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was used. Nursing schools in 14 European countries offering educational programs for levels 4-7 students were approached between January and April 2021. Through an online survey final year students had to indicate to what extent pharmaceutical care topics were present in their curriculum.

RESULTS

A total of 1807 students participated, of whom 8% had level 4-5, 80% level 6, 12% level 7. Up to 84% of the students indicated that pharmaceutical care content was insufficiently addressed in their curriculum. On average 14% [range 0-30] felt sufficiently prepared to achieve the required pharmaceutical care competences in practice. In level 5 curricula more pharmaceutical care domains were absent compared with other levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several pharmaceutical care related courses are present in current curricula of level 4-7 nurses, its embedding should be extended. Too many students perceive an insufficient preparation to achieve pharmaceutical care competences required in practice. Existing gaps in pharmaceutical care should be addressed to offer more thoroughly prepared nurses to the labour market.

Nurses and Pharmaceutical Care: Interprofessional, Evidence-Based Working to Improve Patient Care and Outcomes

Pharmaceutical care necessitates significant efforts from patients, informal caregivers, the interprofessional team of health care professionals and health care system administrators. Collaboration, mutual respect and agreement amongst all stakeholders regarding responsibilities throughout the complex process of pharmaceutical care is needed before patients can take full advantage of modern medicine. Based on the literature and policy documents, in this position paper, we reflect on opportunities for integrated evidence-based pharmaceutical care to improve care quality and patient outcomes from a nursing perspective. Despite the consensus that interprofessional collaboration is essential, in clinical practice, research, education and policy-making challenges are often not addressed interprofessionally. This paper concludes with specific advises to move towards the implementation of more interprofessional, evidence-based pharmaceutical care.

Effectiveness of double checking to reduce medication administration errors: a systematic review

Background

Double checking medication administration in hospitals is often standard practice, particularly for high-risk drugs, yet its effectiveness in reducing medication administration errors (MAEs) and improving patient outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating evidence of the effectiveness of double checking to reduce MAEs.

Methods

Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Ovid@Journals, OpenGrey) were searched for studies evaluating the use and effectiveness of double checking on reducing medication administration errors in a hospital setting. Included studies were required to report any of three outcome measures: an effect estimate such as a risk ratio or risk difference representing the association between double checking and MAEs, or between double checking and patient harm; or a rate representing adherence to the hospital’s double checking policy.

Results

Thirteen studies were identified, including 10 studies using an observational study design, two randomised controlled trials and one randomised trial in a simulated setting. Studies included both paediatric and adult inpatient populations and varied considerably in quality. Among three good quality studies, only one showed a significant association between double checking and a reduction in MAEs, another showed no association, and the third study reported only adherence rates. No studies investigated changes in medication-related harm associated with double checking. Reported double checking adherence rates ranged from 52% to 97% of administrations. Only three studies reported if and how independent and primed double checking were differentiated.

Conclusion

There is insufficient evidence that double versus single checking of medication administration is associated with lower rates of MAEs or reduced harm. Most comparative studies fail to define or investigate the level of adherence to independent double checking, further limiting conclusions regarding effectiveness in error prevention. Higher-quality studies are needed to determine if, and in what context (eg, drug type, setting), double checking produces sufficient benefits in patient safety to warrant the considerable resources required.

CRD42018103436.

Comparison of policies for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration across five Victorian health services

Objectives The aim of the present study was to describe and compare organisational guidance documents related to recognising and responding to clinical deterioration across five health services in Victoria, Australia. Methods Guidance documents were obtained from five health services, comprising 13 acute care hospitals, eight subacute care hospitals and approximately 5500 beds. Analysis was guided by a specific policy analysis framework and a priori themes. Results In all, 22 guidance documents and five graphic observation and response charts were reviewed. Variation was observed in terminology, content and recommendations between the health services. Most health services’ definitions of physiological observations fulfilled national standards in terms of minimum parameters and frequency of assessment. All health services had three-tier rapid response systems (RRS) in place at both acute and subacute care sites, consisting of activation criteria and an expected response. RRS activation criteria varied between sites, with all sites requiring modifications to RRS activation criteria to be made by medical staff. All sites had processes for patient and family escalation of care. Conclusions Current guidance documents related to the frequency of observations and escalation of care omit the vital role of nurses in these processes. Inconsistencies between health services may lead to confusion in a mobile workforce and may reduce system dependability. What is known about the topic? Recognising and responding to clinical deterioration is a major patient safety priority. To comply with national standards, health services must have systems in place for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration. What does this paper add? There is some variability in terminology, definitions and specifications of physiological observations and medical emergency team (MET) activation criteria between health services. Although nurses are largely responsible for physiological observations and escalation of care, they have little authority to direct frequency of observations and triggers for care escalation or tailor assessment to individual patient needs. Failure to identify nurses’ role in policy is concerning and contrary to the evidence regarding nurses and MET activations in practice. What are the implications for practitioners? Inconsistencies in recommendations regarding physiological observations and escalation of care criteria may create patient safety issues when students and staff work across organisations or move from one organisation to another. The validity of other parameters, such as appearance, pain, skin colour and cognition, warrant further consideration as early indicators of deterioration that may be used by nurses to identify clinical deterioration earlier. A better understanding of the relationship between the sensitivity, specificity and frequency of monitoring of particular physiological observations and patient outcomes is needed to improve the predictive validity for identification of clinical deterioration.