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

A two-person verbal check to confirm tracheal intubation: evaluation of practice changes to prevent unrecognised oesophageal intubation

BACKGROUND

Deaths from unrecognised oesophageal intubation continue despite national campaigns emphasising the importance of capnography to confirm tracheal intubation. A two-person verbal intubation check is recommended in consensus guidelines intended to prevent such deaths. This check can be performed by the intubator with their assistant, either as a one-step process (identification of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide) or as a two-step process (adding identification of the tracheal tube passing through the vocal cords during videolaryngoscopy).

METHODS

In two hospitals we introduced two-person checking of tracheal intubation. In one hospital this involved the one-step process and in the other the two-step process. We used anonymous online questionnaires before, during, and after these changes to collect opinions from anaesthetists and their assistants regarding the feasibility and acceptability of these changes.

RESULTS

Most intubators (116/149, 78%) and intubators' assistants (70/72, 97%) reported that the two-person verbal intubation check would reduce the likelihood of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. Benefits and lack of negative aspects were reported for both one-step and two-step two-person intubation checks in both centres. Intubators judged that the checks improved communication and teamwork (118/149, 79%); intubators' assistants reported feeling more empowered to voice concerns if needed (69/72, 96%), a flattened team hierarchy (53/72, 74%), and feeling more valued as team members (64/72, 89%). Most intubators (122/149, 82%) and intubators' assistants (68/72, 94%) planned to continue using the two-person intubation check for all future intubations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that a two-person verbal intubation check is feasible and acceptable to all members of the intubating team.

Rare disease genomic testing in the UK and Ireland: promoting timely and equitable access

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The aim of this position statement is to provide recommendations regarding the delivery of genomic testing to patients with rare disease in the UK and Ireland. The statement has been developed to facilitate timely and equitable access to genomic testing with reporting of results within commissioned turnaround times.

METHODS OF STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT

A 1-day workshop was convened by the UK Association for Clinical Genomic Science and attended by key stakeholders within the NHS Genomic Medicine Service, including clinical scientists, clinical geneticists and patient support group representatives. The aim was to identify best practice and innovations for streamlined, geographically consistent services delivering timely results. Attendees and senior responsible officers for genomic testing services in the UK nations and Ireland were invited to contribute.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified eight fundamental requirements and describe these together with key enablers in the form of specific recommendations. These relate to laboratory practice (proportionate variant analysis, bioinformatics pipelines, multidisciplinary team working model and test request monitoring), compliance with national guidance (variant classification, incidental findings, reporting and reanalysis), service development and improvement (multimodal testing and innovation through research, informed by patient experience), service demand, capacity management, workforce (recruitment, retention and development), and education and training for service users. This position statement was developed to provide best practice guidance for the specialist genomics workforce within the UK and Ireland but is relevant to any publicly funded healthcare system seeking to deliver timely rare disease genomic testing in the context of high demand and limited resources.

Characterizing medication safety incidents in surgical patients: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of incident reports

Background

Medication-related safety incidents (MSIs) are among the most frequent contributors to preventable harm in hospital patients. There is a paucity of research that explores the factors that contribute to MSIs across the departments of high-risk specialties such as surgery.

Objectives

To characterize MSIs involving surgical patients across two secondary care sites at a University Health Board.

Design

Retrospective cross-sectional convergent analysis of anonymous MSI reports extracted from the risk management system between 1st January 2017 and 31st October 2020 was undertaken.

Methods

Incident reports contained categorical data pertaining to the type and nature of the incident as well as free-text reporter accounts. Categorical data were analyzed quantitatively, undergoing descriptive analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics © software (Version 26.0.01; 2019). Content analysis of free-text responses was undertaken using the Organizational Accident Causation model as the underpinning theoretical framework.

Results

Of a total of 670 incidents, most MSIs did not result in harm (n = 495, 73.9%). Most MSIs occurred during administration (n = 439, 65.5%). Half of the incidents (n = 335, 50%) were related to one of three medication types: opioids, antimicrobials, and antithrombotic agents. Communication failures were the most frequent error-producing condition (n = 39, 5.8%) and drug omission was the most frequent active failure (n = 156, 23.3%).

Conclusion

To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first study in the United Kingdom that reports the medications most frequently involved in MSI reports for surgical patients. Staff in the surgical setting should be informed of the high frequency of incidents involving opioids, antimicrobials, heparin, and other antithrombotic agents as they appear in half of MSI reports in the surgical setting. Further research should explore administration error reduction strategies as well as tools to improve communication between staff to mitigate the risk of medicines-related harm associated with key medications.

Shaping Safety: Unveiling the Dynamics of Incident Reporting and Safety Culture in Saudi Arabian Healthcare

Background

Patient safety is a critical concern in healthcare systems worldwide. Understanding the interplay between safety culture and incident reporting behaviors among healthcare professionals is essential for improving patient outcomes.

Objective

To examine the perception of patient safety culture among healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia and its impact on their attitudes toward incident reporting, considering variables such as level of care, ownership, and professional background.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was distributed both online and onsite to 453 healthcare professionals, with 402 completing it. The survey assessed various dimensions of safety culture and incident reporting behaviors. Statistical analysis included correlation matrices, regression models, and comparative assessments across different types of hospital settings.

Results

The study revealed significant associations between perceived safety culture and incident reporting behaviors (p < 0.01). Specifically, management (B = 0.64, p < 0.01), working conditions (r = 0.51, p < 0.01), and job satisfaction (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) were identified as crucial for improvement. The study highlighted the importance of fostering a blame-free culture and establishing clear reporting guidelines to enhance reporting frequencies.

Conclusion

Enhancing the perception of patient safety within healthcare settings positively influences the likelihood of incident reporting. Strategic interventions aimed at improving safety culture could significantly advance patient care quality.

Unveiling the factors influencing public knowledge and behaviours towards medication errors in Jordan: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are preventable incidents resulting from improper use of drugs that may cause harm to patients. They thus endanger patient safety and offer a challenge to the efficiency and efficacy of the healthcare system. Both healthcare professionals and patients may commit medication errors.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVES

A cross-sectional, observational study was designed using a self-developed, self-administered online questionnaire. A sample was collected using convenience sampling followed by snowball sampling. Adult participants from the general population were recruited regardless of age, gender, area of residence, medical history, or educational background in order to explore their practice, experience, knowledge, and fear of medication error, and their understanding of this drug-related problem.

RESULTS

Of the 764 participants who agreed to complete the questionnaire, 511 (66.9%) were females and 295 (38.6%) had a medical background. One-fifth of participants had experienced medication errors, with 37.7% of this segment reporting these medication errors. More than half of all medication errors (84, 57.5%) were minor and thus did not require any intervention. The average anxiety score for all attributes was 21.2 (The highest possible mean was 36, and the lowest possible was 0). The highest level of anxiety was seen regarding the risk of experiencing drug-drug interactions and the lowest levels were around drug costs and shortages. Being female, having no medical background, and having experience with medication errors were the main predictors of high anxiety scores. Most participants (between 67% and 92%) were able to recognise medication errors committed by doctors or pharmacists. However, only 21.2 to 27.5% of participants could recognise medication errors committed by patients. Having a medical background was the strongest predictor of knowledge in this study (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that the prevalence of self-reported medication errors was significantly high in Jordan, some of which resulted in serious outcomes such as lasting impairment, though most were minor. Raising awareness about medication errors and implementing preventive measures is thus critical, and further collaboration between healthcare providers and policymakers is essential to educate patients and establish effective safety protocols.

Exploring susceptibility factors to medication dispensing errors through a retrospective study of patient-reported dispensing errors over 11 years: are dispensing errors indeed due to personal reasons for pharmacists?

BACKGROUND

Medication dispensing errors cause wastage of medicines and increase healthcare costs, with serious consequences for patients. However, few studies have systematically and completely reviewed dispensing errors, with inadequate attention to the objective regularity and risk factors for dispensing errors.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the potential causes and risk factors influencing the prevalence of medication dispensing errors.

METHODS

We collected patient-reported medication dispensing errors from a large tertiary care hospital in South China over 11 years. We assessed the characteristics of dispensing errors, labelled the causes, compared them with more than 25 million prescriptions from 2012 to 2022, identified the susceptibility factors for the occurrence of dispensing errors, and analysed the characteristics and patterns of the errors.

RESULTS

A total of 376 patient-reported dispensing errors were recorded. It took an average of 5.2 days for a patient to find an error. Only 37.5% of errors were reviewed by the patient within 24 hours. These errors directly contributed to a medication loss of US$188 406. Of the 160 recorded pharmacists, 112 (70%) committed dispensing errors. Dispensing errors were affected by the pharmacists' use of the machine, workload and the length of monthly vacation. Of the dispensing errors, 47.9% (n=180) were caused by medication packaging or names that were similar. Antibiotics (n=32, 8.5%) were the most common types of drugs dispensed incorrectly, and traditional Chinese medicines (n=31, 8.2%) and immunosuppressants (n=21, 5.6%) were the most likely to be dispensed in inaccurate quantities.

CONCLUSIONS

Organising adequate staff and using machines to prepare medicines may be necessary to reduce dispensing errors. When pharmacists have been away from work for more than 72 hours they should find their rhythm in other positions before dispensing medicines. It is more important to prioritise the differentiation of medicines with similar packaging over those with similar names when arranging drug shelving.

Evolution of Intravenous Medication Errors and Preventive Systemic Defenses in Hospital Settings-A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Intravenous drug administration has been associated with severe medication errors in hospitals. The present narrative review is based on a systematic literature search, and aimed to describe the recent evolution in research on systemic causes and defenses in intravenous medication errors in hospitals.

METHODS

This narrative review was based on Reason's theory of systems-based risk management. A systematic literature search covering the period from June 2016 to October 2021 was conducted on Medline (Ovid). We used the search strategy and selection criteria developed for our previous systematic reviews. The included articles were analyzed and compared to our previous reviews.

RESULTS

The updated search found 435 articles. Of the 63 included articles, 16 focused on systemic causes of intravenous medication errors, and 47 on systemic defenses. A high proportion (n = 24, 38%) of the studies were conducted in the United States or Canada. Most of the studies focused on drug administration (n = 21/63, 33%) and preparation (n = 19/63, 30%). Compared to our previous review of error causes, more studies (n = 5/16, 31%) utilized research designs with a prospective risk management approach. Within articles related to systemic defenses, smart infusion pumps remained most widely studied (n = 10/47, 21%), while those related to preparation technologies (n = 7/47, 15%) had increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative review demonstrates a growing interest in systems-based risk management for intravenous drug therapy and in introducing new technology, particularly smart infusion pumps and preparation systems, as systemic defenses. When introducing new technologies, prospective assessment and continuous monitoring of emerging safety risks should be conducted.

Automated medication verification system (AMVS): System based on edge detection and CNN classification drug on embedded systems

A novel automated medication verification system (AMVS) aims to address the limitation of manual medication verification among healthcare professionals with a high workload, thereby reducing medication errors in hospitals. Specifically, the manual medication verification process is time-consuming and prone to errors, especially in healthcare settings with high workloads. The proposed system strategy is to streamline and automate this process, enhancing efficiency and reducing medication errors. The system employs deep learning models to swiftly and accurately classify multiple medications within a single image without requiring manual labeling during model construction. It comprises edge detection and classification to verify medication types. Unlike previous studies conducted in open spaces, our study takes place in a closed space to minimize the impact of optical changes on image capture. During the experimental process, the system individually identifies each drug within the image by edge detection method and utilizes a classification model to determine each drug type. Our research has successfully developed a fully automated drug recognition system, achieving an accuracy of over 95 % in identifying drug types and conducting segmentation analyses. Specifically, the system demonstrates an accuracy rate of approximately 96 % for drug sets containing fewer than ten types and 93 % for those with ten types. This verification system builds an image classification model quickly. It holds promising potential in assisting nursing staff during AMVS, thereby reducing the likelihood of medication errors and alleviating the burden on nursing staff.

Development and prioritisation of policy recommendations for medication safety improvement for intensive care units: a European Association of Hospital Pharmacists Special Interest Group Delphi Study

OBJECTIVES

Medication errors (MEs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the healthcare system. Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are potentially more susceptible to MEs due to severity of illness, the complexity of treatments they receive and the challenging nature of the ICU setting. The European Association of Hospital Pharmacists established a Special Interest Group (SIG) to undertake a programme of work to develop and prioritise recommendations to support medication safety improvement in ICUs across Europe.

METHODS

Initial policy recommendations for medication safety within the ICU environment were developed following reviews of the literature and engagement with relevant stakeholders. A Delphi panel of 21 members of the SIG, that comprised healthcare professionals (HCPs) with expertise in ICU and/or medication safety, was convened in 2022. We conducted two rounds using a modified Delphi technique whereby participants anonymously ranked on a 9-point Likert Scale the policy recommendations according to their priority for implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 32 policy recommendations were developed. In Delphi Round 1, 19 HCPs participated; consensus was achieved on most recommendations and partial consensus on six. In Delphi Round 2, 18 HCPs participated. After two Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved on all 32 recommendations. All recommendations were considered 'high priority' except one that was considered 'medium priority'.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study it was possible to develop and prioritise evidence-based policy recommendations to enhance medication safety, which may contribute to reducing MEs in ICUs across Europe. All recommendations were considered 'high priority' for implementation except one, indicating the perceived value of these recommendations in improving medication safety through preventing MEs in ICUs.

Understanding the informal aspects of medication processes to maintain patient safety in hospitals: a sociotechnical ethnographic study in paediatric units

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in hospitals, affecting one in six child in-patients. Medication processes are complex systems. This study aimed to explore the work-as-done of medication safety in three English paediatric units using direct observation and semi-structured interviews. We found that a combination of the physical environment, traditional work systems and team norms were among the systemic barriers to medicines safety. The layout of wards discouraged teamworking and reinforced professional boundaries. Workspaces were inadequate, and interruptions were uncontrollable. A less experienced workforce undertook prescribing and verification while more experienced nurses undertook administration. Guidelines were inadequate, with actors muddling through together. Formal controls against ADEs included checking (of prescriptions and administration) and barcode administration systems, but these did not integrate into workflows. Families played an important part in the safe administration of medication and provision of information about their children but were isolated from other parts of the system.

Evaluating deviations and considerations in daily practice when double-checking high-risk medication administration: A qualitative study using the FRAM

Background

Double-check protocol compliance during administration is low. Regardless, most high-risk medication administrations are performed without incidents. The present study investigated the process of preparing and administrating high-risk medication and examined which variations occur in daily practice. Additionally, we investigated which considerations were taken into account when deviating from the guidelines.

Methods

Ten Dutch hospital wards participated. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method was applied to construct a model depicting the Dutch guidelines and a ward-overarching model visualizing daily practice. To create the ward-overarching model, eight semi-structured interviews were conducted per ward discussing the preparation and administration of high-risk medication. Work related Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off rules were used to structure subconscious considerations.

Results

In total, 77 nurses were interviewed. Six model deviations were found between the guideline model and ward-overarching model. Notably, four variations in double-check procedures were found. Here, time pressure was an important factor. Nurses made a risk-assessment, considering for patient stability, and difficulty of calculations, to determine whether the double-check would be executed. Additionally, subconscious reasonings, such as trusting their own or colleagues expertise, weighed on the decision.

Conclusion

Time pressure is the most important factor that withholds nurses from performing the double-check. Nurses instead conduct a risk-assessment to decide if the double-check will be executed. The double-check can thus become habitual or unnecessary for certain medications. In future research, insights of the FRAM could be used to make ward-specific alterations for the double-check procedure of medications, that focus on feasibility in daily practice, while maintaining patient safety.

Designing Human-Centered AI to Prevent Medication Dispensing Errors: Focus Group Study With Pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Medication errors, including dispensing errors, represent a substantial worldwide health risk with significant implications in terms of morbidity, mortality, and financial costs. Although pharmacists use methods like barcode scanning and double-checking for dispensing verification, these measures exhibit limitations. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmacy verification emerges as a potential solution, offering precision, rapid data analysis, and the ability to recognize medications through computer vision. For AI to be embraced, it must be designed with the end user in mind, fostering trust, clear communication, and seamless collaboration between AI and pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to gather pharmacists' feedback in a focus group setting to help inform the initial design of the user interface and iterative designs of the AI prototype.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary research team engaged pharmacists in a 3-stage process to develop a human-centered AI system for medication dispensing verification. To design the AI model, we used a Bayesian neural network that predicts the dispensed pills' National Drug Code (NDC). Discussion scripts regarding how to design the system and feedback in focus groups were collected through audio recordings and professionally transcribed, followed by a content analysis guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety and Human-Machine Teaming theoretical frameworks.

RESULTS

A total of 8 pharmacists participated in 3 rounds of focus groups to identify current challenges in medication dispensing verification, brainstorm solutions, and provide feedback on our AI prototype. Participants considered several teaming scenarios, generally favoring a hybrid teaming model where the AI assists in the verification process and a pharmacist intervenes based on medication risk level and the AI's confidence level. Pharmacists highlighted the need for improving the interpretability of AI systems, such as adding stepwise checkmarks, probability scores, and details about drugs the AI model frequently confuses with the target drug. Pharmacists emphasized the need for simplicity and accessibility. They favored displaying only essential information to prevent overwhelming users with excessive data. Specific design features, such as juxtaposing pill images with their packaging for quick comparisons, were requested. Pharmacists preferred accept, reject, or unsure options. The final prototype interface included (1) checkmarks to compare pill characteristics between the AI-predicted NDC and the prescription's expected NDC, (2) a histogram showing predicted probabilities for the AI-identified NDC, (3) an image of an AI-provided "confused" pill, and (4) an NDC match status (ie, match, unmatched, or unsure).

CONCLUSIONS

In partnership with pharmacists, we developed a human-centered AI prototype designed to enhance AI interpretability and foster trust. This initiative emphasized human-machine collaboration and positioned AI as an augmentative tool rather than a replacement. This study highlights the process of designing a human-centered AI for dispensing verification, emphasizing its interpretability, confidence visualization, and collaborative human-machine teaming styles.

Evaluating the Impact of Pharmacist Dual Verification of Anticancer Therapy in the Modern Era

Background: Pharmacist order verification is a critical step in ensuring medication safety for patients. While the second pharmacist verification (SPV) before dispensing anticancer therapies has been a longstanding practice, its continued necessity in the context of modern electronic health systems lacks robust evidence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency of interventions performed by a second pharmacist to determine the ongoing effectiveness of the SPV process. Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, encompassing all anticancer therapy orders that necessitated an SPV. The study period extended from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021, and included inpatient and outpatient anticancer orders. The quantification and reporting of alterations made to discrete order fields subsequent to initial pharmacist verification of clinical significance were performed, utilizing the total number of anticancer therapy orders as the denominator. Results: Approximately 300 000 anticancer therapy orders were screened for inclusion criteria and 2.6% (N = 7634) of orders were modified on the SPV. Most changes were in the categories of rate (N = 1962), order start time (N = 1219), and pharmacy communication note (N = 777). Dosing changes greater than 10% accounted for 0.03% (N = 99) of the orders, with 10 anticancer therapies responsible for more than 50% of these changes. Conclusion and relevance: This study represents the largest report on the impact of SPV in a modern era. Our results suggest the SPV may be valuable for a small proportion of chemotherapy orders but raises questions about the necessity for broad application of this practice.

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.

Implementation of barcode medication administration (BMCA) technology on infusion pumps in the operating rooms

BACKGROUND

Medication administration errors (MAEs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. An updated barcode medication administration (BCMA) technology on infusion pumps is implemented in the operating rooms to automate double check at a syringe exchange.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this mixed-methods before-and-after study is to understand the medication administrating process and assess the compliance with double check before and after implementation.

METHODS

Reported MAEs from 2019 to October 2021 were analysed and categorised to the three moments of medication administration: (1) bolus induction, (2) infusion pump start-up and (3) changing an empty syringe. Interviews were conducted to understand the medication administration process with functional resonance analysis method (FRAM). Double check was observed in the operating rooms before and after implementation. MAEs up to December 2022 were used for a run chart.

RESULTS

Analysis of MAEs showed that 70.9% occurred when changing an empty syringe. 90.0% of MAEs were deemed to be preventable with the use of the new BCMA technology. The FRAM model showed the extent of variation to double check by coworker or BCMA.Observations showed that the double check for pump start-up changed from 70.2% to 78.7% postimplementation (p=0.41). The BCMA double check contribution for pump start-up increased from 15.3% to 45.8% (p=0.0013). The double check for changing an empty syringe increased from 14.3% to 85.0% (p<0.0001) postimplementation. BCMA technology was new for changing an empty syringe and was used in 63.5% of administrations. MAEs for moments 2 and 3 were significantly reduced (p=0.0075) after implementation in the operating rooms and ICU.

CONCLUSION

An updated BCMA technology contributes to a higher double check compliance and MAE reduction, especially when changing an empty syringe. BCMA technology has the potential to decrease MAEs if adherence is high enough.

Drug administration errors in Latin America: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This study systematically reviewed studies to determine the frequency and nature of medication administration errors in Latin American hospitals.

SUMMARY

We systematically searched the medical literature of seven electronic databases to identify studies on medication administration errors in Latin American hospitals using the direct observation method. Studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese between 1946 and March 2021 were included. A total of 10 studies conducted at 22 hospitals were included in the review. Nursing professionals were the most frequently observed during medication administration and were observers in four of the ten included studies. Total number of error opportunities was used as a parameter to calculate error rates. The administration error rate had a median of 32% (interquartile range 16%-35.8%) with high variability in the described frequencies (9%-64%). Excluding time errors, the median error rate was 9.7% (interquartile range 7.4%-29.5%). Four different definitions of medication errors were used in these studies. The most frequently observed errors were time, dose, and omission. Only four studies described the therapeutic classes or groups involved in the errors, with systemic anti-infectives being the most reported. None of the studies assessed the severity or outcome of the errors. The assessment of the overall risk bias revealed that one study had low risk, three had moderate risk, and three had high risk. In the assessment of the exploratory, observational, and before-after studies, two were classified as having fair quality and one as having poor quality.

CONCLUSION

The administration error rate in Latin America was high, even when time errors were excluded. The variation observed in the frequencies can be explained by the different contexts in which the study was conducted. Future research using direct observation techniques is necessary to more accurately estimate the nature and severity of medication administration errors.

Practical Considerations of PRN Medicines Management: An Integrative Systematic Review

Background and objectives: Highly widespread use of pro re nata (PRN) medicines in various healthcare settings is a potential area for improper medication prescription and administration leading to patient harm. This study aimed to summarize and integrate the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding the practical considerations of PRN medicines management including strategies and interventions by healthcare professionals for safe prescription, dispensing, administration, monitoring, and deprescription of PRN medicines in healthcare settings. Methods: An integrative systematic review on international databases were performed. Electronic databases including Web of Knowledge, Scopus, PubMed (including MEDLINE), and Cinahl were searched to retrieve articles published until end of May 2021. Original qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies written in English were included with a focus on PRN medicines management in healthcare settings. Research synthesis using the narrative method was performed to summarise the results of included studies. Results: Thirty-one studies on PRN medicines in healthcare settings by different healthcare providers were included after the screening of the databases based on eligibility criteria. They were published from 1987 to 2021. The majority of studies were from Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom and were conducted in psychiatric settings. Given variations in their purposes, methods, and outcomes, the research synthesis was conducted narratively based on diversities and similarities in findings. Eight categories were developed by the authors as follows: "PRN indications and precautionary measures," "requirements of PRN prescription," "interventions for PRN administration," "monitoring and follow up interventions," "deprescription strategies," "healthcare professionals' role," "participation of patients and families," and "multidisciplinary collaboration." Each category consists of several items and describes what factors should be considered by healthcare professionals for PRN medicines management. Conclusion: The review findings provide insights on the practical considerations of PRN medicines management in clinical practice. The suggested list of considerations in our review can be used by healthcare professionals for optimal PRN medicines management and safeguarding patient care.

The impact of a novel medication scanner on administration errors in the hospital setting: a before and after feasibility study

Objective

The medication administration process is complex and consequently prone to errors. Closed Loop Medication Administration solutions aim to improve patient safety. We assessed the impact of a novel medication scanning device (MedEye) on the rate of medication administration errors in a large UK Hospital.

Methods

We performed a feasibility before and after study on one ward at a tertiary-care teaching hospital that used a commercial electronic prescribing and medication administration system. We conducted direct observations of nursing drug administration rounds before and after the MedEye implementation. We calculated the rate and type (‘timing’, ‘omission’ or ‘other’ error) of medication administration errors (MAEs) before and after the MedEye implementation.

Results

We observed a total of 1069 administrations before and 432 after the MedEye intervention was implemented. Data suggested that MedEye could support a reduction in MAEs. After adjusting for heterogeneity, we detected a decreasing effect of MedEye on overall errors (p = 0.0753). Non-timing errors (‘omission’ and ‘other’ errors) reduced from 51 (4.77%) to 11 (2.55%), a reduction of 46.5%, which had borderline significance at the 5% level, although this was lost after adjusting for confounders.

Conclusions

This pilot study detected a decreasing effect of MedEye on overall errors and a reduction in non-timing error rates that was clinically important as such errors are more likely to be associated with harm. Further research is needed to investigate the impact on a larger sample of medications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01828-3.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of User-Testing of Health Professionals' Guidelines to Reduce the Frequency of Intravenous Medicines Administration Errors by Nurses in the United Kingdom: A Probabilistic Model Based on Voriconazole Administration

AIM

In the UK, injectable medicines are often prepared and administered by nurses following the Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG). Our earlier study confirmed a higher frequency of correct administration with user-tested versus standard IMG guidelines. This current study aimed to model the cost-effectiveness of user-testing.

METHODS

The costs and cost-effectiveness of user-testing were explored by modifying an existing probabilistic decision-analytic model. The adapted model considered administration of intravenous voriconazole to hospital inpatients by nurses. It included 11 error types, their probability of detection and level of harm. Model inputs (including costs) were derived from our previous study and other published data. Monte Carlo simulation using 20,000 samples (sufficient for convergence) was performed with a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the 121 NHS trusts and health boards that use the IMG. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for the risk of a medication error and other sources of uncertainty.

RESULTS

The net monetary benefit at £20,000/quality-adjusted life year was £3,190,064 (95% credible interval (CrI): -346,709 to 8,480,665), favouring user-testing with a 96% chance of cost-effectiveness. Incremental cost-savings were £240,943 (95% CrI 43,527-491,576), also favouring user-tested guidelines with a 99% chance of cost-saving. The total user testing cost was £6317 (95% CrI 6012-6627). These findings were robust to assumptions about a range of input parameters, but greater uncertainty was seen with a lower medication error risk.

CONCLUSIONS

User-testing of injectable medicines guidelines is a low-cost intervention that is highly likely to be cost-effective, especially for high-risk medicines.

Assessing the impact of a mixed intervention model on the reduction of medication administration errors in an Australian hospital

BACKGROUND

Medication errors remain one of the most common types of incidents reported in Australian hospitals. Studies have reported that for every 10 medication administrations, a medication administration error is likely to occur and reach the patient, potentially contributing to a preventable patient harm.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a mixed intervention model on medication administration errors in an Australian hospital.

METHODS

Two types of intervention model (human and system orientated) were implemented through collaboration with key stakeholders (nurses, educators, and policy makers) to reduce medication administration errors across this 650-bed multisite Australian hospital from August 2018 to June 2019. To assess the impact of the mixed intervention model, the total number of reported medication errors and the number of medication administration errors were retrieved from the hospital electronic medication management system for 12 months before (from June 2017 to July 2018) and after (from July 2019 to June 2020) implementation of all interventions.

RESULTS

Implementation of a mixed intervention model through collaboration with stakeholders resulted in significant reduction in the number of medication administration errors, and those with harm (from 68 to 55%, P < 0.0001 and from 12 to 8%, P = 0.0001 respectively). Additionally, the severity of medication administration errors was also reduced (HR 0.562, 95% CI (0.298-1.062)) in the post-intervention phase.

CONCLUSION

Introducing a mixed intervention model reduces medication administration errors across health settings and has the potential to drive excellence in healthcare.

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.

Changes in medication administration error rates associated with the introduction of electronic medication systems in hospitals: a multisite controlled before and after study

Background

Electronic medication systems (EMS) have been highly effective in reducing prescribing errors, but little research has investigated their effects on medication administration errors (MAEs).

Objective

To assess changes in MAE rates and types associated with EMS implementation.

Methods

This was a controlled before and after study (three intervention and three control wards) at two adult teaching hospitals. Intervention wards used an EMS with no bar-coding. Independent, trained observers shadowed nurses and recorded medications administered and compliance with 10 safety procedures. Observational data were compared against medication charts to identify errors (eg, wrong dose). Potential error severity was classified on a 5-point scale, with those scoring ≥3 identified as serious. Changes in MAE rates preintervention and postintervention by study group, accounting for differences at baseline, were calculated.

Results

7451 administrations were observed (4176 pre-EMS and 3275 post-EMS). At baseline, 30.2% of administrations contained ≥1 MAE, with wrong intravenous rate, timing, volume and dose the most frequent. Post-EMS, MAEs decreased on intervention wards relative to control wards by 4.2 errors per 100 administrations (95% CI 0.2 to 8.3; p=0.04). Wrong timing errors alone decreased by 3.4 per 100 administrations (95% CI 0.01 to 6.7; p<0.05). EMS use was associated with an absolute decline in potentially serious MAEs by 2.4% (95% CI 0.8 to 3.9; p=0.003), a 56% reduction in the proportion of potentially serious MAEs. At baseline, 74.1% of administrations were non-compliant with ≥1 of 10 procedures and this rate did not significantly improve post-EMS.

Conclusions

Implementation of EMS was associated with a modest, but significant, reduction in overall MAE rate, but halved the proportion of MAEs rated as potentially serious.

Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to improve medication safety in the dispensing process - a study at a teaching hospital, Sri Lanka

Background

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a prospective, team based, structured process used to identify system failures of high risk processes before they occur. Medication dispensing is a risky process that should be analysed for its inherent risks using FMEA. The objective of this study was to identify possible failure modes, their effects, and causes in the dispensing process of a selected tertiary care hospital using FMEA.

Methods

Two independent teams (Team A and Team B) of pharmacists conducted the FMEA for two months in the Department of Pharmacy of a selected teaching hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Each team had five meetings of two hours each, where the dispensing process and sub processes were mapped, and possible failure modes, their effects, and causes, were identified. A score for potential severity (S), frequency (F) and detectability (D) was assigned for each failure mode. Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) were calculated (RPN=SxFxD), and identified failure modes were prioritised.

Results

Team A identified 48 failure modes while Team B identified 42. Among all 90 failure modes, 69 were common to both teams. Team A prioritised 36 failure modes, while Team B prioritised 30 failure modes for corrective action using the scores. Both teams identified overcrowded dispensing counters as a cause for 57 failure modes. Redesigning of dispensing tables, dispensing labels, the dispensing and medication re-packing processes, and establishing a patient counseling unit, were the major suggestions for correction.

Conclusion

FMEA was successfully used to identify and prioritise possible failure modes of the dispensing process through the active involvement of pharmacists.

Use of Computer Vision to Identify the Frequency and Magnitude of Insulin Syringe Preparation Errors

BACKGROUND

No current technology exists to ensure the dose of insulin administered in hospitals matches the physician order.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the feasibility of using computer vision to identify insulin syringe preparation errors.

METHODS

Twenty-two nurses prepared 50 insulin doses (n=1100) each. A computer vision device (CVD) measured the volume drawn up and identified air present. Syringes identified as inaccurate by the CVD were confirmed by two observers, and a random sample of 100 syringes identified as accurate was validated by two independent observers.

RESULTS

Ten syringes (1.0%) had the wrong volume prepared, and 68 syringes (6.5%) contained air sufficient to meet the definition of inaccuracy. All errors were confirmed by two independent observers.

CONCLUSION

CVDs could reduce insulin administration errors in hospitalized patients.

Interventions to Reduce Pediatric Prescribing Errors in Professional Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review of the Last Decade

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric medication therapy is prone to errors due to the need for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic individualization and the diverse settings in which pediatric patients are treated. Prescribing errors have been reported as the most common medication error.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to systematically identify interventions to reduce prescribing errors and corresponding patient harm in pediatric healthcare settings and to evaluate their impact.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically screened (time range November 2011 to December 2019), and experimental studies were included. Interventions to reduce prescribing errors were extracted and classified according to a 'hierarchy of controls' model.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were included, and 70 individual interventions were identified. A bundle of interventions was more likely to reduce prescribing errors than a single intervention. Interventions classified as 'substitution or engineering controls' were more likely to reduce errors in comparison with 'administrative controls', as is expected from the hierarchy of controls model. Fourteen interventions were classified as substitution or engineering controls, including computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support (CDS) systems. Administrative controls, including education, expert consultations, and guidelines, were more commonly identified than higher level controls, although they may be less likely to reduce errors. Of the administrative controls, expert consultations were most likely to reduce errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to reduce pediatric prescribing errors are more likely to be successful when implemented as part of a bundle of interventions. Interventions including CPOE and CDS that substitute risks or provide engineering controls should be prioritized and implemented with appropriate administrative controls including expert consultation.

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence.

METHODS

Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence.

RESULTS

For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings.

Smart agent system for insulin infusion protocol management: a simulation-based human factors evaluation study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the insulin infusion management of critically ill patients by nurses using either a common standard (ie, human completion of insulin infusion protocol steps) or smart agent (SA) system that integrates the electronic health record and infusion pump and automates insulin dose selection.

DESIGN

A within subjects design where participants completed 12 simulation scenarios, in 4 blocks of 3 scenarios each. Each block was performed with either the manual standard or the SA system. The initial starting condition was randomised to manual standard or SA and alternated thereafter.

SETTING

A simulation-based human factors evaluation conducted at a large academic medical centre.

SUBJECTS

Twenty critical care nurses.

INTERVENTIONS

A systems engineering intervention, the SA, for insulin infusion management.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary study outcomes were error rates and task completion times. Secondary study outcomes were perceived workload, trust in automation and system usability, all measured with previously validated scales.

MAIN RESULTS

The SA system produced significantly fewer dose errors compared with manual calculation (17% (n=20) vs 0, p<0.001). Participants were significantly faster, completing the protocol using the SA system (p<0.001). Overall ratings of workload for the SA system were significantly lower than with the manual system (p<0.001). For trust ratings, there was a significant interaction between time (first or second exposure) and the system used, such that after their second exposure to the two systems, participants had significantly more trust in the SA system. Participants rated the usability of the SA system significantly higher than the manual system (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A systems engineering approach jointly optimised safety, efficiency and workload considerations.

Interventions to Reduce Medication Dispensing, Administration, and Monitoring Errors in Pediatric Professional Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Pediatric patients cared for in professional healthcare settings are at high risk of medication errors. Interventions to improve patient safety often focus on prescribing; however, the subsequent stages in the medication use process (dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring) are also error-prone. This systematic review aims to identify and analyze interventions to reduce dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring errors in professional pediatric healthcare settings. Methods: Four databases were searched for experimental studies with separate control and intervention groups, published in English between 2011 and 2019. Interventions were classified for the first time in pediatric medication safety according to the "hierarchy of controls" model, which predicts that interventions at higher levels are more likely to bring about change. Higher-level interventions aim to reduce risks through elimination, substitution, or engineering controls. Examples of these include the introduction of smart pumps instead of standard pumps (a substitution control) and the introduction of mandatory barcode scanning for drug administration (an engineering control). Administrative controls such as guidelines, warning signs, and educational approaches are lower on the hierarchy and therefore predicted by this model to be less likely to be successful. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1 study of dispensing errors, 7 studies of drug administration errors, and 12 studies targeting multiple steps of the medication use process. A total of 44 interventions were identified. Eleven of these were considered higher-level controls (four substitution and seven engineering controls). The majority of interventions (n = 33) were considered "administrative controls" indicating a potential reliance on these measures. Studies that implemented higher-level controls were observed to be more likely to reduce errors, confirming that the hierarchy of controls model may be useful in this setting. Heterogeneous study methods, definitions, and outcome measures meant that a meta-analysis was not appropriate. Conclusions: When designing interventions to reduce pediatric dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring errors, the hierarchy of controls model should be considered, with a focus placed on the introduction of higher-level controls, which may be more likely to reduce errors than the administrative controls often seen in practice. Trial Registration Prospero Identifier: CRD42016047127.

PRN Medicines Optimization and Nurse Education

Medicines management is a high-risk and error prone process in healthcare settings, where nurses play an important role to preserve patient safety. In order to create a safe healthcare environment, nurses should recognize challenges that they face in this process, understand factors leading to medication errors, identify errors and systematically address them to prevent their future occurrence. ''Pro re nata'' (PRN, as needed) medicine administration is a relatively neglected area of medicines management in nursing practice, yet has a high potential for medication errors. Currently, the international literature indicates a lack of knowledge of both the competencies required for PRN medicines management and the optimum educational strategies to prepare students for PRN medicines management. To address this deficiency in the literature, the authors have presented a discussion on nurses' roles in medication safety and the significance and purpose of PRN medications, and suggest a model for preparing nursing students in safe PRN medicines management. The discussion takes into account patient participation and nurse competencies required to safeguard PRN medication practice, providing a background for further research on how to improve the safety of PRN medicines management in clinical practice.

What do double-check routines actually detect? An observational assessment and qualitative analysis of identified inconsistencies

OBJECTIVES

Double checking is used in oncology to detect medication errors before administering chemotherapy. The objectives of the study were to determine the frequency of detected potential medication errors, i.e., mismatching information, and to better understand the nature of these inconsistencies.

DESIGN

In observing checking procedures, field noteswere taken of all inconsistencies that nurses identified during double checking the order against the prepared chemotherapy.

SETTING

Oncological wards and ambulatory infusion centres of three Swiss hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Nurses' double checking was observed.

OUTCOME MEASURES

In a qualitative analysis, (1) a category system for the inconsistencies was developed and (2) independently applied by two researchers.

RESULTS

In 22 (3.2%) of 690 observed double checks, 28 chemotherapy-related inconsistencies were detected. Half of them related to non-matching information between order and drug label, while the other half was identified because the nurses used their own knowledge. 75% of the inconsistencies could be traced back to inappropriate orders, and the inconsistencies led to 33 subsequent or corrective actions.

CONCLUSIONS

In double check situations, the plausibility of the medication is often reviewed. Additionally, they serve as a correction for errors and that are made much earlier in the medication process, during order. Both results open up new opportunities for improving the medication process.

User-testing guidelines to improve the safety of intravenous medicines administration: a randomised in situ simulation study

BACKGROUND

User-testing and subsequent modification of clinical guidelines increases health professionals' information retrieval and comprehension. No study has investigated whether this results in safer care.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the frequency of medication errors when administering an intravenous medicine using the current National Health Service Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG) versus an IMG version revised with user-testing.

METHOD

Single-blind, randomised parallel group in situ simulation. Participants were on-duty nurses/midwives who regularly prepared intravenous medicines. Using a training manikin in their clinical area, participants administered a voriconazole infusion, a high-risk medicine requiring several steps to prepare. They were randomised to use current IMG guidelines or IMG guidelines revised with user-testing. Direct observation was used to time the simulation and identify errors. Participant confidence was measured using a validated instrument. The primary outcome was the percentage of simulations with at least one moderate-severe IMG-related error, with error severity classified by an expert panel.

RESULTS

In total, 133 participants were randomised to current guidelines and 140 to user-tested guidelines. Fewer moderate-severe IMG-related errors occurred with the user-tested guidelines (n=68, 49%) compared with current guidelines (n=79, 59%), but this difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio: 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02). Significantly more simulations were completed without any IMG-related errors with the user-tested guidelines (n=67, 48%) compared with current guidelines (n=26, 20%) (risk ratio: 2.46; 95% CI 1.68 to 3.60). Median simulation completion time was 1.6 min (95% CI 0.2 to 3.0) less with the user-tested guidelines. Participants who used user-tested guidelines reported greater confidence.

CONCLUSION

User-testing injectable medicines guidelines reduces the number of errors and the time taken to prepare and administer intravenous medicines, while increasing staff confidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

researchregistry5275.