A cluster randomised controlled feasibility study of nurse-initiated behavioural strategies to manage interruptions during medication administration

Nursing Students' Medication Administration: A Focus on Hand Hygiene and Patient Identification

BACKGROUND

Procedural failures during medication administration include a lack of appropriate hand hygiene and failure to verify patient identification prior to administration of medication. Procedural failures are common among nurses and nursing students and can lead to serious patient harm.

METHOD

A descriptive cross-sectional research design was used to collect observational data from a simulation-based experience of a medication administration scenario.

RESULTS

Thirty-five senior baccalaureate nursing students from two geographically distant universities in the United States participated in the study. All of the participants made at least one procedural failure during the simulated experience. Hand hygiene compliance was 40.3%, and patient identification compliance was 43.8%.

CONCLUSION

Students often failed to comply with medication administration safety guidelines. Nursing programs must make changes to the methods used to teach safe medication administration to prepare students for this critical skill. [J Nurs Educ. 2023;62(7):403-407.].

Associations of person-related, environment-related and communication-related factors on medication errors in public and private hospitals: a retrospective clinical audit

BACKGROUND

Efforts to ensure safe and optimal medication management are crucial in reducing the prevalence of medication errors. The aim of this study was to determine the associations of person-related, environment-related and communication-related factors on the severity of medication errors occurring in two health services.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical audit of medication errors was undertaken over an 18-month period at two Australian health services comprising 16 hospitals. Descriptive statistical analysis, and univariate and multivariable regression analysis were undertaken.

RESULTS

There were 11,540 medication errors reported to the online facility of both health services. Medication errors caused by doctors (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.690, 95% CI 0.618-0.771), or by pharmacists (OR 0.327, 95% CI 0.267-0.401), or by patients or families (OR 0.641, 95% CI 0.472-0.870) compared to those caused by nurses or midwives were significantly associated with reduced odds of possibly or probably harmful medication errors. The presence of double-checking of medication orders compared to single-checking (OR 0.905, 95% CI 0.826-0.991) was significantly associated with reduced odds of possibly or probably harmful medication errors. The presence of electronic systems for prescribing (OR 0.580, 95% CI 0.480-0.705) and dispensing (OR 0.350, 95% CI 0.199-0.618) were significantly associated with reduced odds of possibly or probably harmful medication errors compared to the absence of these systems. Conversely, insufficient counselling of patients (OR 3.511, 95% CI 2.512-4.908), movement across transitions of care (OR 1.461, 95% CI 1.190-1.793), presence of interruptions (OR 1.432, 95% CI 1.012-2.027), presence of covering personnel (OR 1.490, 95% 1.113-1.995), misread or unread orders (OR 2.411, 95% CI 2.162-2.690), informal bedside conversations (OR 1.221, 95% CI 1.085-1.373), and problems with clinical handovers (OR 1.559, 95% CI 1.136-2.139) were associated with increased odds of medication errors causing possible or probable harm. Patients or families were involved in the detection of 1100 (9.5%) medication errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and families need to be engaged in discussions about medications, and health professionals need to provide teachable opportunities during bedside conversations, admission and discharge consultations, and medication administration activities. Patient counselling needs to be more targeted in effort to reduce medication errors associated with possible or probable harm.

Effectiveness of a 'do not interrupt' vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

The use of a ‘do not interrupt’ vest during medication administration rounds is recommended but there have been no controlled randomized studies to evaluate its impact on reducing administration errors. We aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing such a vest on reducing such errors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the types and potential clinical impact of errors, the association between errors and several risk factors (such as interruptions), and nurses’ experiences.

Methods

This was a multicenter, cluster, controlled, randomized study (March–July 2017) in 29 adult units (4 hospitals). Data were collected by direct observation by trained observers. All nurses from selected units were informed. A ‘Do not interrupt’ vest was implemented in all units of the experimental group. A poster was placed at the entrance of these units to inform patients and relatives. The main outcome was the administration error rate (number of Opportunities for Error (OE), calculated as one or more errors divided by the Total Opportunities for Error (TOE) and multiplied by 100).

Results

We enrolled 178 nurses and 1346 patients during 383 medication rounds in 14 units in the experimental group and 15 units in the control group. During the intervention period, the administration error rates were 7.09% (188 OE with at least one error/2653 TOE) for the experimental group and 6.23% (210 OE with at least one error/3373 TOE) for the control group (p = 0.192). Identified risk factors (patient age, nurses’ experience, nurses’ workload, unit exposition, and interruption) were not associated with the error rate. The main error type observed for both groups was wrong dosage-form. Most errors had no clinical impact for the patient and the interruption rates were 15.04% for the experimental group and 20.75% for the control group.

Conclusions

The intervention vest had no impact on medication administration error or interruption rates. Further studies need to be performed taking into consideration the limitations of our study and other risk factors associated with other interventions, such as nurse’s training and/or a barcode system.

Trial registration

The PERMIS study protocol (V2–1, 11/04/2017) was approved by institutional review boards and ethics committees (CPP Ile de France number 2016-A00211–50, CNIL 21/03/2017, CCTIRS 11/04/2016). It is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03062852, date of first registration: 23/02/2017).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-021-00671-7.