Interventions to ensure medication safety in acute care: an umbrella review

Reducing insulin omission errors among patients with diabetes mellitus in general surgical wards: a best practice implementation project

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Omission of insulin, a high-alert medication with one of the highest locally reported errors, could lead to severe hyperglycemia, which could result in coma or death if not treated timeously. This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the occurrence of insulin omission errors in diabetic adult patients requiring insulin.

METHODS

This project followed the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework and conducted context analysis, strategy implementation, and evaluation of outcomes according to evidence-based quality indicators. The JBI PACES and JBI GRiP situational analysis tools were used to support data collection and implementation planning. There was one evidence-based criterion and five sub-criteria, with a sample size of 22 patients.

RESULTS

There was increased compliance with best practices to reduce interruptions and distractions from baseline audit (50%) to follow-up audits 1 (45.4%) and 2 (31.8%), and no insulin omission incidences during the implementation period. In the post-implementation analysis, there were notable improvements in compliance with strategies related to nurses; however, reduced compliance was observed related to patients. Key barriers to implementation included patients still disturbing nurses despite the nurses wearing the medication vests and patients forgetting instructions not to disturb nurses during medication administration. Strategies to improve compliance included ensuring coverage in each cubicle during insulin preparation and administration, tending to patients' needs prior to insulin administration, and use of posters as reminders.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an overall increase in compliance with best practice to reduce interruptions and distractions and no insulin omission incidences related to interruptions and distractions during the implementation phase.

SPANISH ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A219.

Bedside Nurse Documentation Practices: At the Patient Bedside or Not?

High-quality care requires precise and timely provider documentation. Hospitals have used technology to document patient care within both the inpatient and outpatient areas and long-term care facilities. Research has demonstrated, by revealing a reduction in medical errors, that there has been a worldwide improvement in our community health and welfare since the implementation and utilization of documenting patient care electronically. Although electronic documentation has proven to be an improvement in patient record keeping, the most efficient location in which this documentation is to occur remains a question. At the location where this project took place, only the ICU had computers within the patient rooms for documentation purposes. This project evaluated bedside nurses' opinions related to the efficiency of documentation practices compounded by the location where documentation took place. The options were at the patient's bedside, on a workstation on wheels, or at the nursing station. Surveys were provided to bedside nursing staff both before and after computers were installed in patients' rooms in surgical and medical/surgical nursing units at a Veteran Affairs Medical Center located in the Northeastern region of the United States. The results of this project inconclusively answer the question posed: "Which mode of entry do nurses feel is more efficient to document patient care, on a computer in the patient room, at the nurses' station, or on a workstation on wheels?" Innovative strategies should be explored to develop a user-friendly design for computers located within the patient rooms for patient documentation.

Barriers and enablers for safe medication administration in adult and neonatal intensive care units mapped to the behaviour change wheel

BACKGROUND

Intensive care settings have high rates of medication administration errors. Medications are often administered by nurses and midwives using a specified process (the '5 rights'). Understanding where medication errors occur, the contributing factors and how best practice is delivered may assist in developing interventions to improve medication safety.

AIMS

To identify medication administration errors and context specific barriers and enablers for best practice in an adult and a neonatal intensive care unit. Secondary aims were to identify intervention functions (through the Behaviour Change Wheel).

STUDY DESIGN

A dual methods exploratory descriptive study was conducted (May to June 2021) in a mixed 56-bedded adult intensive care unit and a 6-bedded neonatal intensive care unit in Sydney, Australia. Incident monitoring data were examined. Direct semi-covert observational medication administration audits using the 5 rights (n = 39) were conducted. Brief interviews with patients, parents and nurses were conducted. Data were mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel.

RESULTS

No medication administration incidents were recorded. Audits (n = 3) for the neonatal intensive care unit revealed no areas for improvement. Adult intensive care unit nurses (n = 36) performed checks for the right medication 35 times (97%) and patient identity 25 times (69%). Sixteen administrations (44%) were interrupted. Four themes were synthesized from the interview data: Trust in the nursing profession; Availability of policies and procedures; Adherence to the '5 rights' and departmental culture; and Adequate staffing. The interventional functions most likely to bring about behaviour change were environmental restructuring, enablement, restrictions, education, persuasion and modelling.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals insights about the medication administration practices of nurses in intensive care. Although there were areas for improvement there was widespread awareness among nurses regarding their responsibilities to safely administer medications. Interview data indicated high levels of trust among patients and parents in the nurses.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This novel study indicated that nurses in intensive care are aware of their responsibilities to safely administer medications. Mapping of contextual data to the Behaviour Change Wheel resulted in the identification of Intervention functions most likely to change medication administration practices in the adult intensive care setting that is environmental restructuring, enablement, restrictions, education, persuasion and modelling.

Potential Risk Factors of Drug-Related Problems in Hospital-Based Mental Health Units: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Reducing the occurrence of drug-related problems is a global health concern. In mental health hospitals, drug-related problems are common, leading to patient harm, and therefore understanding their potential risk factors is key for guiding future interventions designed to minimise their frequency.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units.

METHODS

Six databases were searched between 2000 and 2021 to identify studies that investigated the potential risk factors of drug-related problems in adults hospitalised in mental health inpatient units. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently and Allan and Barker's criteria were used for study quality assessment. Studies were categorised based on drug-related problem types and potential risk factors were stratified as patient, medication, and hospital related.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included. Studies mostly originated in Europe (n = 19/22, 86.4%), and used a multivariable logistic regression to identify potential risk factors (n = 13, 59%). Frequently investigated factors were patient age (n = 14/22), sex (n = 14/22) and the number of prescribed medications (n = 14/22). Of these, increasing the number of prescribed medications was the only factor consistently reported to be significantly associated with the occurrence of most types of drug-related problems (n = 11/14).

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of patient, medication and hospital-related potential risk factors of drug-related problems in mental health inpatient units were identified. These factors could guide the development of interventions to reduce drug-related problems such as pharmaceutical screening tools to identify high-risk patients for timely interventions. Future studies could test a wider range of possible factors associated with drug-related problems using standardised approaches.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42021279946.

Development and psychometric assessment of self-reported patient medication safety scale (SR-PMSS)

Objectives:

Patient medication safety can affect their clinical outcomes and plays an important role in patient safety management. However, few tools have been developed to assess patient medication safety. This study aimed to develop and validate the self-reported patient medication safety scale (SR-PMSS).

Methods:

We developed SR-PMSS guided by the Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome framework and used psychometric methods to test its validity and reliability.

Results:

A total of 501 patients with an average age of 56.81 ± 14.47 were enrolled in this study. The SR-PMSS consisted of 21 items and 5 factors. The content validity was good with item-level content validity index (CVI) > 0.78, average scale-level CVI (S-CVI) > 0.9, and universal agreement S-CVI > 0.8. Exploratory factor analysis extracted a five-factor solution with eigenvalues > 0.1, explaining 67.766% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit, acceptable convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for SR-PMSS was 0.929, the split-half reliability coefficient was 0.855, and the test–retest reliability coefficient was 0.978.

Conclusions:

The SR-PMSS was a valid and reliable instrument with good reliability and validity to evaluate the level of patient medication safety. The target users of the SR-PMSS are all people who are taking or have used prescription medications. The SR-PMSS can be used by healthcare providers in clinical practice and research to identify patients at risk for medication use and intervene with them to reduce adverse medication events and provide support for patient safety management.

Plain Language Summary

SR-PMSS – a self-reported tool to assess patient medication safety Medication therapy was the most common and frequent treatment method to prevent and cure diseases. Medication safety issues may occur in the process of medication use. Patient medication safety can affect their clinical outcomes and plays an important role in patient safety management. However, there are few tools to assess patient medication safety currently, and most of them focused on medication safety related to hospitals or healthcare workers. We developed the self-reported patient medication safety scale (SR-PMSS) guided by the Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome framework. Then, we conducted a two-round expert consultation, clarity verification, and item simplification to determine the final version of the scale. The SR-PMSS consisted of 21 items and 5 factors and it had good validity and reliability. The target users of the SR-PMSS are all people who are taking or have used prescription medications. Healthcare providers can use the SR-PMSS in clinical practice and research to identify patients at risk for medication use and intervene with them to reduce adverse medication events and provide support for patient safety management.

Medication Errors in Intensive Care Units: An Umbrella Review of Control Measures

Medication errors are defined as “any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the health care professional, patient, or consumer.” Such errors account for 30 to 50 percent of all errors in health care. The literature is replete with systematic reviews of medication errors, with a considerable number of studies focusing on systems and strategies to prevent errors in intensive care units, where these errors occur more frequently; however, to date, there appears to be no study that encapsulates and analyzes the various strategies. The aim of this study is to identify the main strategies and interventions for preventing medication errors in intensive care units through an umbrella review. The search was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Scopus; it was completed in November 2020. Seven systematic reviews were included in this review, with a total of 47 studies selected. All reviews aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a single intervention or a combination of interventions and strategies to prevent and reduce medication errors. Analysis of the results that emerged identified two macro-areas for the prevention of medication errors: systems and processes. In addition, the findings highlight the importance of adopting an integrated system of interventions in order to protect the system from harm and contain the negative consequences of errors.

Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88).  Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.

Interventions to Enhance Medication Safety in Residential Aged-care Settings: An Umbrella Review

AIM

To conduct a systematic synthesis of existing evidence reviews on interventions to enhance medication safety in residential aged-care settings (RACS) to establish and compare their effectiveness.

METHOD

This umbrella review included examination of meta-analyses, scoping and systematic reviews. Four electronic databases were examined for eligible reviews. Two authors critically appraised those meeting the inclusion criteria using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instrument.

RESULTS

Fifteen reviews covering 171 unique, primary studies were included. Of the variety of interventions identified in the literature, five main categories of interventions were commonly reported to be effective in promoting medication safety in RACS (medication review, staff education, multidisciplinary team meetings, computerised clinical decision support systems and miscellaneous). Most reviews showed mixed evidence to support intervention effectiveness due to the significant heterogeneity between studies in their sites, sample sizes and intervention periods. In all intervention categories, pharmacists' collaboration was most beneficial, showing definitive evidence for improving medication safety and quality of prescribing in RACS. Eight reviews recommended multicomponent interventions, particularly medication reviews and staff education, but specific details were infrequently provided. Only five reviews presented insights into implementation facilitators and barriers, while the sustainability of interventions was only discussed in one review.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence to support the four main categories of interventions identified. However, limited details are available regarding the most appropriate design and implementation of multicomponent interventions and the sustainability of all interventions, thus solid recommendations cannot be made. Future research in this field should focus on producing theoretically informed, methodologically robust, original research, particularly regarding the design, implementation and sustainability of multicomponent interventions, which appears the most promising approach.