Current Situation of Medication Errors in Saudi Arabia: A Nationwide Observational Study

Characteristics and causes of reported clozapine-related medication errors: analysis of the Ministry of Health database in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Clozapine has shown great efficacy in treating treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but it is associated with a variety of medication- related safety problems. Despite this, there remains a lack of research on medication errors (MEs) associated with its use.

AIM

To characterize the nature and contributory factors of clozapine-related MEs reported from government hospitals and primary care centres in Saudi Arabia (SA).

METHOD

A cross-sectional analysis was carried out on MEs related to clozapine use reported to the General Administration of Pharmaceutical Care at the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Saudi Arabia between 2018 and 2022. The data were analysed descriptively to examine the nature and contributory factors of MEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,165 MEs were reported. The majority of reported errors involved patients aged > 18 years old, with 72.2% (n = 841) being male. The central region was found to report errors more frequently (32.3%, n = 376). Pharmacists were reported to detect errors most frequently (59.6%, n = 695). MEs most often occurred in the prescribing stage (77.8%, n = 906), with "missing prescription information" (30.1%, n = 351) being the most frequent finding. The most frequent contributing factor was the lack of policy (33.1%, n = 351). The majority of errors did not reach the patients (92.3%, n = 1,075), and those that did reach patients rarely resulted in harm (0.3%, n = 2).

CONCLUSION

This study identified areas for improvement which could expedite the development of remedial interventions to reduce the risk of errors.

Evaluation of the automated dispensing cabinets users' level of satisfaction and the influencing factors in Al-Ahsa hospitals

Automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) are decentralized, computer-controlled systems used to store, distribute, and track medications at the point of care in the wards.

Objective

The objective of the current study is to evaluate how healthcare practitioners are satisfied with ADCs and scrutinize some influencing factors that could affect this satisfaction.

Material

A cross-sectional survey study was designed and distributed online to healthcare providers in Al-hasa hospitals.

Results

A total of 166 participants. Regarding the frequency and pattern of ADC use, around 79.5% used ADC and 85.4% were informed about using ADC on a daily basis. As for the level of satisfaction with ADC, an exact 81.9% gave a high rate for overall satisfaction, 81.3% were highly satisfied with the system's accuracy, and 74.7% were highly satisfied with the time it takes to complete the task. Regarding usability of the system, 69.8% thought it was easy whereas 36.8% agreed that the time required for reloading medication is longer than before ADC. Furthermore, 79.5% agreed that ADC allowed them to accomplish their job safely, and 67.4% agreed that it improved their productivity. Regarding challenges, 74.7% agreed that all drawer types assure safe access and removal of medications, and 18.7% agreed that there is a significant potential for loss of data.

Conclusion

This study investigated healthcare staff's perceptions and satisfaction with ADCs in Al-hasa hospitals. The healthcare participants were mostly highly satisfied with the use of the ADCs which translated into better patient care and improved patient safety as well as higher productivity.

Enhancing Patient Safety: A Cross-Sectional Study to Assess Medical Interns' Attitude and Knowledge About Medication Safety in Saudi Arabia

Introduction and aim Medication errors (MEs) pose a severe threat in the medical field. Since such errors are preventable, it is paramount for all healthcare workers to be educated on the matter. This study aimed to assess medical interns' attitudes and knowledge of medication safety and errors. We also aimed to validate current university programs to educate students about medication safety and errors. Methods A cross-sectional study that utilized a self-administered online questionnaire comprised 31 questions. The questionnaire was distributed via social media networks, such as WhatsApp, Twitter, email, Instagram, and Snapchat among 100 medical, pharmacy, and nursing interns in Saudi Arabia. The study population included both Saudi and non-Saudi interns. Results The majority of participants, comprising 92% (n=92), indicated that they were familiar with the definition of medication errors (ME). Additionally, 85% (n=85) expressed their willingness to report instances of MEs when medications were not prescribed but required. Moreover, 90% (n=90) of the surveyed individuals expressed their willingness to report MEs in situations where patients did not receive medications as prescribed. In cases where patients experienced harm and required treatment due to an ME, 91% (n=91) of respondents committed to reporting such incidents. A total of 52 (52%) respondents stated that they would report MEs regardless of whether they reached/harmed the patient. A good ME knowledge level was observed in 48% of respondents. A higher likelihood of good ME knowledge was significantly associated with safety reporting system (SRS) awareness and reporting MEs regardless of whether they reached/harmed the patient (p<0.05). College, awareness/attitude, or other demographic factors were not significantly related to ME knowledge (p>0.05). Conclusion This study showed that although interns in the healthcare field do have some knowledge about MEs, there is still a significant need to improve their knowledge. This can be achieved through various ways, one of which is by implementing this topic into the university curricula.

Unveiling medication errors in liver transplant patients towards enhancing the imperative patient safety

Background

Medication errors (MEs) are a significant healthcare problem that can harm patients and increase healthcare expenses. Being immunocompromised, liver-transplant patients are at high risk for complications if MEs inflict harmful or damaging effects. The present study reviewed and analyzed all MEs reported in Liver Transplant Patients.

Methods

All MEs in the Liver Transplant Patients admitted between January 2016 to August 2022 were retrieved through the computerized physician order entry system, which two expert pharmacists classified according to the type and severity risk index.

Results

A total of 314 records containing 407 MEs were committed by at least 71 physicians. Most of these errors involved drugs unrelated to managing liver-transplant-related issues. Antibiotic prescriptions had the highest mistake rate (17.0%), whereas immunosuppressants, routinely used in liver transplant patients, rank second with fewer than 14% of the identified MEs. The most often reported MEs (43.2%) are type-C errors, which, despite reaching patients, did not cause patient harm. Subgroup analysis revealed several factors associated with a statistically significant great incidence of MEs among physicians treating liver transplant patients.

Conclusion

Although a substantial number of MEs occurred with liver transplant patients, the majority are not related to liver-transplant medications, which mainly belonged to type-C errors. This could be attributed to polypharmacy of transplant patients or the heavy workload on health care practitioners. Improving patient safety requires adopting regulations and strategies to promptly identify MEs and address potential errors.

Incidence and root causes of medication errors by anesthetists: a multicenter web-based survey from 8 teaching hospitals in Ethiopia

BAKGROUND

The operating room is a demanding and time-constrained setting, in comparison to primary care settings, where perioperative medication administration is more complicated and there is a high risk that the patient will experience a medication error. Without consulting the pharmacist or seeking assistance from other staff members, anesthesia clinicians prepare, deliver, and monitor strong anesthetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to determine the Incidence and root causes of medication errors by anesthetists in Amhara region, Ethiopia.

METHODS

A multi-center cross sectional web-based survey study was conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2022, across eight referral and teaching hospitals of Amhara region. A self-administered semi structured questionnaire was distributed using survey planet. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20. Descriptive statistics were computed and binary logistic regression was used for data analysis. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The study included 108 anesthetists in total, yielding a response rate of 42.35%. Out of 104 anesthetists, Majority of participants (82.7%) were male. During their clinical practice, more than half (64.4%) of participants experienced atleast one drug administration error. 39 (37.50%) of the respondents revealed that they experienced more medication errors while on night shifts. Anesthetists who did not always double-check their anesthetic drugs before administration had a 3.51 higher risk of developing MAEs compared to those who always double-check anesthetic drugs before administration (AOR = 3.51; 95% CI: 1.34, 9.19). Additionally, participants who administer medications that have been prepared by someone else are about five times more likely to experience MAEs than participants who prepare their own anesthetic medications prior to administration (AOR = 4.95; 95% CI: 1.54, 15.95).

CONCLUSION

The study found a considerable rate of errors in the administration of anaesthetic drugs. The failure to always double-check medications before administration and the use of drugs prepared by another anaesthetist were identified to be underlying root causes for drug administration errors.

Productivity Loss and Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Brazilian Presenteeism: A Cross-sectional Study

Background:

The work has been brought to nursing professionals, denoting an increase in illness and consequent decrease in productivity.

Objective:

This study aims to verify the relationship between productivity and the presence of musculoskeletal symptoms in presenteeism.

Methods:

This is a cross-sectional and analytical study conducted with 305 Nursing workers from an emergency hospital in the Brazilian Midwest region. For data collection, four self-applied instruments were used, namely: the Sociodemographic Work and Health Conditions Questionnaire (QSCTS), the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6), the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and the Brazilian version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ), Nordic Musculoskeletal Symptom Questionnaire (QNSO). The “presenteeism” and “presenteeism degree” dependent variables were related to the independent variables using the logistic regression model.

Results:

Presenteeism was identified in 134 (43.8%) workers. Overall productivity loss was 8.8%. Regarding the relationship between presenteeism and the occurrence of musculoskeletal symptoms, workers with problems in the upper back, knees, and neck in the last year were 6.5, 2.7, and 2.2 more likely to be presenteeism, respectively.

Conclusion:

The study confirmed the relationship between greater productivity losses and the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms with presenteeism events in the Nursing team.

Impact of automated drug dispensing system on patient safety

Objectives

Automated drug dispensing system (ADDs) is an emerging technology positively impacts drug dispensing efficiency by minimizing medication errors. However, the pharmacist perception of the impact of ADDs on patient safety is not well-established. This cross-sectional observational study aimed to evaluate the dispensing practice and pharmacist perception of ADDs towards patient safety through a validated questionnaire.

Methods

A self-designed questionnaire was validated and the pharmacist perception of dispensing practice was compared between two hospitals adopting ADDs and traditional drug dispensing system (TDDs).

Results

The developed questionnaire had an excellent internal consistency (both Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω coefficients were >0.9). Factor analysis retained three significant factors (subscales) that explained pharmacist perception of dispensing system, dispensing practice, and patient counseling (p<0.001 for each factor). The average number of prescriptions dispensed per day, drugs contained in each prescription, average time for labeling each prescription and inventory management were significantly varied between ADDs and TDDs (p=0.027, 0.013 0.044 and 0.004, respectively). The perception of pharmacists using ADDs on three domains were higher than the TDDs. The pharmacists in ADDs agreed that they had enough time to review the medications before dispensing than TDDs and this difference was found to be statistically significant (p=0.028).

Conclusions

ADDs was highly effective in improving dispensing practice and medication review; however, the pharmacists need to emphasize the importance of ADDs to translate the pharmacists' freed-time towards patient care.

Assessment of Medication Errors Among Anesthesia Clinicians in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Introduction

Anesthetic drugs are prepared and administrated without referral to the pharmacy or other medical departments. We aimed to assess the occurrence of anesthetic drug errors in Saudi Arabia. We also determined the contributing factors, reporting strategies, and clinicians' opinions of the preventive measures.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey study using a validated tool. A total of 300 anesthesia clinicians completed the survey (146 anesthesiologists and 154 anesthesia technology specialists). We measured descriptive statistics to describe the demographic characteristics and performed inferential statistics to examine associations and differences.

Results

Sixty-nine percent of respondents had experienced an anesthetic drug error at least once in their career. The two primary factors that caused drug errors were haste (60.3%) and heavy workload (60.3%). On syringe labeling, 56.3% withdrew the drug then labeled the syringe, and 43.7% labeled the syringe then withdrew the drug. The chi-square test revealed that clinicians who labeled the syringe first then withdrew the drug made errors more frequently (p = 0.036). The test also showed that clinicians with less experience had committed more errors (p = 0.015). On reporting drug errors, 77.7% of respondents identified the fear of medicolegal issues as the most common barrier to reporting errors. Respondents believed that double-checking the medication and color-coded syringe labels were the most effective strategies to reduce errors (82% and 64%, respectively). The Mann-Whiney U test revealed significant differences between the two specialties about their opinions of the preventive measures.

Conclusions

There was a high occurrence rate of anesthetic drug errors in Saudi Arabia. Policymakers need to unify the syringe-labeling practice, and future research needs to focus on what makes a nonpunitive culture to encourage reporting errors.