Perceptions and Attitudes towards Medication Error Reporting in Primary Care Clinics: A Qualitative Study in Malaysia

Identifying factors influencing clinicians' reporting of medication errors: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using the theoretical domains framework

INTRODUCTION

Medication errors have a significant impact on patient safety and professional practice. The widespread under-reporting of errors by clinicians indicates the critical need for behavioral change. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize qualitative evidence on factors influencing clinicians' reporting of medication errors.

AREAS COVERED

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, PubMed, and Embase were searched until March 2023 for studies on factors influencing clinicians' reporting of medication errors. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Using framework synthesis approach, the identified themes were mapped to Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

EXPERT OPINION

The review analyzed fourteen high-quality studies across various regions. Facilitators of reporting were identified in the TDF domains of beliefs about consequences knowledge and social/professional role and identity. More themes emerged as barriers, mapped to the domains of beliefs about consequences, emotions, environmental context and resources and knowledge. The review suggests aligning these barriers with key behavior change techniques, such as emphasizing the risks of non-reporting, promoting emotional well-being, improving accessibility of reporting systems and advancing knowledge through educational programs. Future work should focus on developing these behavior change techniques into practical interventions.

Factors influencing the reporting of medication errors and near misses among nurses: A systematic mixed methods review

AIM

This study aimed to systematically review empirical evidence on factors influencing nurses to report medication errors and near misses.

BACKGROUND

There is underreporting of medication errors among nurses, in particular among novice and beginner nurses. To improve quality of care, factors influencing the reporting of medication errors and near misses should be documented.

METHOD

A systematic mixed methods review was conducted. CINAHL, Cochrane Collaboration, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases were explored and analysed from December 1990 to December 2023. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data using a standardized data extraction grid. Data were analysed using thematic analysis based on the adapted theory of planned behaviour.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies met the eligibility criteria. Principal factors influencing the reporting of medication errors and near misses among nurses were associated with perceived behavioural control, subjective norm and attitude. Few studies examined factors influencing reporting medication errors and near misses among novice and beginner nurses, and sociodemographic and professional factors.

CONCLUSION

To understand factors influencing reporting of medication errors and near misses, further studies should be conducted to investigate sociodemographic and professional factors.

Health professionals' perceptions of the development needs of incident reporting software: A qualitative systematic review

AIM

To systemically identify and synthesize information on health professionals' and students' perceptions regarding the development needs of incident reporting software.

DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative studies.

DATA SOURCES

A database search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Medic without time or language limits in February 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

A total of 4359 studies were identified. Qualitative studies concerning the perceptions of health professionals and students regarding the development needs of incident reporting software were included, based on screening and critical appraisal by two independent reviewers. A thematic synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

From 10 included studies, five analytical themes were analysed. Health professionals and students desired the following improvements or changes to incident reporting software: (1) the design of reporting software, (2) the anonymity of reporting, (3) the accessibility of reporting software, (4) the classification of fields and answer options and (5) feedback and tracking of reports. Wanted features included suitable reporting forms for various specialized fields that could be integrated into existing hospital information systems. Rapid, user-friendly reporting software using multiple reporting platforms and with flexible fields and predefined answer options was preferred. While anonymous reporting was favoured, the idea of reporting serious incidents with both patient and reporter names was also suggested.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals and students provided concrete insights into the development needs for reporting software. Considering the underreporting of healthcare cases, the perspectives of healthcare professionals must be considered while developing user-friendly reporting tools. Reporting software that facilitates the reporting process could reduce underreporting.

REPORTING METHOD

The ENTREQ reporting guideline was used to support the reporting of this systematic review.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

There was no patient or public contribution.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with register number CRD42023393804.

Types, Trends, and Patterns of the Reported Antimicrobial Errors to the Eastern Region’s Medical Centers in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Medication errors (MEs) are a huge burden on any healthcare system and have been associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The medical literature reported heavily on MEs but lacked focus on analyzing high-risk medications such as antimicrobials.

Research design and methods

This was a retrospective analysis of the MEs database reported by the eastern region's medical centers in Saudi Arabia from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. We used descriptive analysis to identify most common antimicrobials with errors, the stage of antimicrobial errors, type of the errors, contributing factors to the errors, and categories of errors based on the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC-MERP) classification of errors.

Results

A total of 1422 (22.1%) antimicrobial errors were identified out of 6412 MEs. Amoxicillin/Clavulanate (18%) was the most common antimicrobial reported in the database. Most errors occurred in the prescribing phase (87.6%) and included mainly incorrect doses (32.1%) and duplicate therapy (20.5%). In addition, most errors were identified as category B (72.5%). Finally, inexperienced personnel (57.9%) was the most cited contributing factor.

Conclusion

This study revealed that antimicrobial errors occur primarily during prescription and that policy gaps and inexperienced staff were contributory factors. To improve, the focus should shift to physician education, clear dosing guidelines, efficient workload management, and implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs to promote appropriate antimicrobial use.

The Relationship between Professional Identity, Performance and Attitude to Medical Errors Self-reporting among Medical Students

INTRODUCTION

Medical errors are a serious problem in providing medical care and ensuring the health of society, and discovering the causes of errors to minimize the possibility of their occurrence is one of the main challenges in the field of treating patients. This study aimed to determine the relationship between professional identity, performance and attitude to self-reported medical errors among medical interns of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on 187 medical interns with census method in five Ardabil educational hospitals in the second semester of 2020-2021. Data collection tool was a questionnaire consisting of 3 parts (demographic, self-reported attitude towards medical errors and professional identity). The validity of the questionnaire was evaluated using Content validity index (CVI) and Content validity ratio (CVR). The reliability of the attitude section was 0.78 and 0.86 for professional identity section. Data analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21 by descriptive statistics, such as mean and standard deviation and independent T-test, chi-square and one-way ANOVA. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean scores of students' attitudes towards self-report and professional identity were 55.6±8.8 and 60.4±9.8. Less than 50% of the students declared the possibility of reporting their medical errors. There were no significant differences in the mean scores of self-reported attitude, medical error and professional identity according to grade point average, type of faculty and students' gender (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The attitude and performance of students regarding the self-disclosure of medical errors was not satisfactory, and it seems that the analysis of the educational programs in the education of medical errors and the legal and ethical aspects of errors needs serious attention.

Patient safety error reporting program for future undergraduate nursing education: A scoping review protocol

Patient safety error reporting education is instrumental in promoting a culture of safety where health-care providers learn from errors and prevent such problems from being repeated. The proposed scoping review aims to establish a comprehensive understanding of how patient error reporting education has been implemented in undergraduate nursing education and present a direction for developing a future patient safety reporting program. The proposed scoping review protocol will be conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework, following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology for scoping reviews. It will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P), and a full scoping review will be reported according to PRISMA extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). In the scoping review, studies published in any language and where the participants were undergraduate nursing students were included. In addition, the search period will not be limited, and the following databases will be used to search for relevant studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Excerpta Medica databases (EMBASE). Moreover, this scoping review does not include unpublished studies or gray literature. Two reviewers will independently review titles and abstracts to evaluate inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary literature will be selected. Two reviewers will independently assess the full text of selected primary literature in detail against the study criteria.

Knowledge and Attitude toward Medication Error among Pharmacists

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate knowledge and attitude toward medication error (ME) among pharmacists working in public health care institutions. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among pharmacists working in public health care institutions. Respondents were randomly recruited from 5 hospitals and 25 primary healthcare clinics in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. A set of self-administered questionnaires was used to assess their knowledge and attitude, distributed as a web-based survey. Knowledge and attitude toward ME reporting were assessed using five-point Likert-scale. This study was conducted between May and July 2019. Results: A total of 186 respondents participated in the study. A majority of respondents were female (n = 144). About 90% of the respondents had good score on knowledge on ME. Only 25.4% of the respondents had favorable attitude toward ME reporting. Female pharmacists (P = .001), more experienced pharmacists (P = .012) and those working in primary health clinics (P = .014) were associated with more favorable attitude. Knowledge did not correlate well with attitude toward ME reporting (r = 0.08, P = .29). Conclusion: Despite having good knowledge on ME, the attitude toward ME reporting was still very poor among the pharmacists.

Medication Error Concept and Reporting Practices in Saudi Arabia: A Multiregional Study Among Healthcare Professionals

Background

Medication errors pose a risk for individual patients and for public health, with the misuse and overuse of medications being linked to severe patient safety problems. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate healthcare professionals’ (HCPs’) knowledge about medication errors, their knowledge about medication error reporting systems, and predictors for HCPs to report medication errors in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted among HCPs (physicians, pharmacists, and nurses) between January and March 2020. The study included 6 distinct locations in the Saudi Arabian regions of Hail, Al-Qassim, Al-Jouf, Al-Madinah, the eastern region, and the western region. Descriptive statistical and inferential analyses were computed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v.22.

Results

In total, 980 questionnaires for 348 (35.5%) physicians, 144 (14.7%) pharmacists, and 488 (49.8%) nurses were distributed with a response rate of 100%. Interestingly, only 277 (28.3%) of the HCPs had a good understanding of the stages of medication errors. With regard to reporting practices, a high number of the HCPs, 576 (58.8%), had not reported medication errors in their workplaces, and nearly 369 (37.7%) of respondents said they believe that legal implications are a major barrier to the reporting of medication errors. More than half, 524 (53.5%), of HCPs revealed that no clear electronic system is available for the reporting of medication errors in most hospitals. In addition, 537 (54.8%), of the HCPs had not attended any training programs regarding medication error reporting systems within the past year, which is alarming.

Conclusion

Our study identified a huge lack of the reporting of medication errors, knowledge about medication error stages, and training on medication errors. Therefore, an urgent need to address these weaknesses exists.

Comparison of Patient Safety Incident Reporting Systems in Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

Incident reporting is one of the tools used to improve patient safety that has been widely used in health facilities in many countries. Incident reporting systems provide functionality to collect, analyze, and disseminate lessons learned to the wider community, whether at the hospital or national level. The aim of this study was to compare the patient safety incident reporting systems of Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia to identify similarities, differences, and areas for improvement.

METHODS

We searched the official Web sites and homepages of the responsible leading patient safety agencies of the three countries. We reviewed all publicly available guidelines, regulatory documents, government reports that included policies, guidelines, strategy papers, reports, evaluation programs, as well as scientific articles and gray literature related to the incident reporting system. We used the World Health Organization components of patient safety reporting system as the guidelines for comparison and analyzed the documents using descriptive comparative analysis.

RESULTS

Taiwan had the most incidents reported, followed by Malaysia and Indonesia. Taiwan Patient Safety Reporting (TPR) and the Malaysian Reporting and Learning System had similar attributes and followed the World Health Organization components for incident reporting. We found differences between the Indonesian system and both of TPR and the Malaysian system. Indonesia did not have an external reporting deadline, analysis and learning were conducted at the national level, and there was a lack of transparency and public access to data and reports. All systems need to establish a clear and structured incident reporting evaluation framework if they are to be successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TPR and Malaysian system, the Indonesian patient safety incident reporting system seemed to be ineffective because it failed to acquire adequate national incident reporting data and lacked transparency; these deficiencies inhibited learning at the national level. We suggest further research on the implementation at the hospital level to see how far national guidelines and policy have been implemented in each country.

Perceptions of Patient Safety Culture and Medication Error Reporting among Early- and Mid-Career Female Nurses in South Korea

Reporting medication errors is crucial for improving quality of care and patient safety in acute care settings. To date, little is known about how reporting varies between early and mid-career nurses. Thus, this study used a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis design to investigate the differences between early (under the age of 35) and mid-career (ages 35-54) female nurses by examining their perceptions of patient safety culture using the Korean Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC) and single-item self-report measure of medication error reporting. A total of 311 hospital nurses (260 early-career and 51 mid-career nurses) completed questionnaires on perceived patient safety culture and medication error reporting. Early-career nurses had lower levels of perception regarding patient safety culture (p = 0.034) compared to mid-career nurses. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed that relatively short clinical experience (<3 years) and a higher level of perceived patient safety culture increased the rate of appropriate medication error reporting among early-career nurses. However, there was no significant association between perception of patient safety culture and medication error reporting among mid-career nurses. Future studies should investigate the role of positive perception of patient safety culture on reporting errors considering multidimensional aspects, and include hospital contextual factors among early-, mid-, and late-career nurses.

Medical error reporting among doctors and nurses in a Nigerian hospital: A cross-sectional survey

AIM

To compare doctors' and nurses' perceptions of factors influencing medical error reporting.

BACKGROUND

In Nigeria, there is limited information on determinants of error reporting and systems.

METHODS

From the total workforce (N = 600), 140 nurses and 90 doctors were selected by random sampling and completed the questionnaire February to March 2017.

RESULTS

All 140 nurses and 90 doctors approached responded. Inter-professional differences in response to sentinel events showed that 55/140, 39.3% nurses and 48/90, 53.3% doctors would never report wrong medicines administered and 49/138, 35.5% nurses and 35/90, 38.9% doctors would never report a haemolytic transfusion error. Some respondents (72/140, 51.4% nurses vs. 29/90, 32.2% doctors) were unaware of reporting systems. Most (77/140, 55% nurses vs. 48/90, 53.3% doctors) considered these to be ineffective and confounded by a 'blame culture'. Perceived barriers included lack of confidentiality; facilitators included clear guidelines about protection from litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Error reporting is suboptimal. Nurses and doctors have a minimal common understanding of barriers to error reporting and demonstrate inconsistent practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Suboptimal reporting of serious adverse events has implications for patient safety. Managers need to prioritize education in adverse events, clarify reporting procedures and divest the organisation of a 'blame culture'.

Prescribing error reporting in primary care: a narrative synthesis systematic review

Prescribing errors can cause avoidable harm to patients. Most prescriptions originate in primary care, where medications tend to be self-administered and errors have the most potential to cause harm. Reporting prescribing errors can identify trends and reduce the risk of the reoccurrence of incidents; however, under-reporting is common. The organisation of care and the movement of prescriptions from general practice to community pharmacy may create difficulties for professionals to effectively report errors.

This review aims specifically to identify primary research studies that examine barriers and facilitators to prescription error reporting across primary care. A systematic research of the literature was completed in July 2019. Four databases (PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL and Web of Science) were searched for relevant studies. No date or language limits were applied. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised.

Ten articles were included in the final analysis. Seven studies considered prescription errors and error reporting within general practice and three within a community pharmacy setting. Findings from the included studies are presented across five themes, including definition of an error, prescribing error reporting culture, reporting processes, communication and capacity.

Healthcare professionals appreciate the value of prescription error reporting, but there are key barriers to implementation, including time, fear of reprisal and organisation separation within primary care.

Factors affecting nursing error communication in intensive care units: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Error communication includes both reporting errors to superiors and disclosing their consequences to patients and their families. It significantly contributes to error prevention and safety improvement. Yet, some errors in intensive care units are not communicated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to explore factors affecting error communication in intensive care units.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted in 2019. Participants were 17 critical care nurses purposively recruited from the intensive care units of 2 public hospitals affiliated to Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and were analyzed through the conventional content analysis method proposed by Graneheim and Lundman.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran approved the study (code: IR.IUMS. REC.1397.792). Participants were informed about the study aim and methods and were ensured of data confidentiality. They were free to withdraw from the study at will. Written informed consent was obtained from all of them.

FINDINGS

Factors affecting error communication in intensive care units fell into four main categories, namely the culture of error communication (subcategories were error communication organizational atmosphere, clarity of processes and guidelines, managerial support for nurses, and learning organization), the consequences of errors for nurses and nursing (subcategories were fear over being stigmatized as incompetent, fear over punishment, and fear over negative judgments about nursing), the consequences of errors for patients (subcategories were monitoring the effects of errors on patients and predicting the effects of errors on patients), and ethical and professional characteristics (subcategories were ethical characteristics and inter-professional relationships).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study show many factors affect error communication, some facilitate and some prohibit it. Organizational factors such as the culture of error communication and the consequences of error communication for the nurse and the patient, as well as individual and professional characteristics, including ethical characteristics and interprofessional relationship, influence this process.

CONCLUSION

Errors confront nurses with ethical challenges and make them assess error consequences and then, communicate or hide them based on the results of their assessments. Health authorities can promote nurses' error communication through creating a supportive environment for them, developing clear error communication processes and guidelines, and providing them with education about the principles of ethical practice.

Development and Psychometric Validation of a Questionnaire to Evaluate Knowledge and Attitude Towards Medication Error Reporting Among Pharmacists

Purpose

Assessment of medication errors (ME) is crucial to improving the quality of health care. A questionnaire that can be used to explore pharmacists’ perspectives regarding ME would be very useful as part of an ongoing process of quality improvement in patient care. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to measure perceived causes of ME and attitude towards ME reporting among pharmacists.

Methods

The questionnaire was developed from the literature together with outcomes from focus group discussions. It was divided into two domains which are knowledge on ME and attitude towards ME reporting. Content validity index (I-CVI), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess test–retest reliability were obtained during the validation process.

Results

Overall Cronbach alpha for internal consistency was good (0.742), where subscale of the questionnaire demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha value 0.83 for knowledge and 0.70 for reporting behaviour attitude. The I-CVI showed good scores (knowledge=0.88) and (attitude=0.81), while ICC was moderately accepted with a value of 0.77. Two factors were extracted from the 16 items in EFA.

Conclusion

The questionnaire to assess knowledge on ME and attitude towards ME reporting among pharmacists is valid and reliable. It demonstrates good psychometric properties.

Knowledge, perceived barriers and facilitators of medication error reporting: a quantitative survey in Malaysian primary care clinics

Background Medication errors are the most common types of medical errors that occur in health care organisations; however, these errors are largely underreported. Objective This study assessed knowledge on medication error reporting, perceived barriers to reporting medication errors, motivations for reporting medication errors and medication error reporting practices among various health care practitioners working at primary care clinics. Setting This study was conducted in 27 primary care clinics in Malaysia. Methods A self-administered survey was distributed to family medicine specialists, doctors, pharmacists, pharmacist assistants, nurses and assistant medical officers. Main outcome measures Health care practitioners' knowledge, perceived barriers and motivations for reporting medication errors. Results Of all respondents (N = 376), nurses represented 31.9% (n = 120), followed by doctors (n = 87, 23.1%), pharmacists (n = 63, 16.8%), assistant medical officers (n = 53, 14.1%), pharmacist assistants (n = 46, 12.2%) and family medicine specialists (n = 7, 1.9%). Of the survey respondents who had experience reporting medication errors, 56% (n = 62) had submitted medication error reports in the preceding 12 months. Results showed that 41.2% (n = 155) of respondents were classified as having good knowledge on medication error and medication error reporting. The mean score of knowledge was significantly higher among prescribers and pharmacists than nurses, pharmacist assistants and assistant medical officers (p < 0.05). A heavy workload was the key barrier for both nurses and assistant medical officers, while time constraints prevented pharmacists from reporting medication errors. Family medicine specialists were mainly unsure about the reporting process. On the other hand, doctors and pharmacist assistants did not report primarily because they were unaware medication errors had occurred. Both family medicine specialists and pharmacist assistants identified patient harm as a motivation to report an error. Doctors and nurses indicated that they would report if they thought reporting could improve the current practices. Assistant medical officers reported that anonymous reporting would encourage them to submit a report. Pharmacists would report if they have enough time to do so. Conclusion Policy makers should consider using the information on identified barriers and facilitators to reporting medication errors in this study to improve the reporting system to reduce under-reported medication errors in primary care.

Medical Error Reporting: Status Quo and Perceived Barriers in an Orthopedic Center in Iran

Background:

Medical error reporting is fundamental for improving patient safety. We surveyed healthcare professionals to evaluate their experience of adverse events witness and reporting, knowledge about adverse events, attitude toward own and colleagues' errors, and perceived barriers in reporting errors.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted on healthcare professionals from May to October 2017 at Chamran hospital, which is the largest referral orthopedic center in southern Iran. The self-administered questionnaire comprised 32 items covering five domains: (1) demographic and professional characteristics, (2) medical error witness and reporting, (3) actual and perceived knowledge regarding type of events and the status of completed training courses, (4) attitude toward reporting one's own and colleagues' errors, and (5) perceived barriers in error reporting. Questionnaire validity and reliability was proven in our previous study.

Results:

From a total of 210 participants, 164 returned completed questionnaires (response rate = 78.1%); 87 (53%) were physicians and 77 (47%) were nurses. Underreporting was common, particularly among physicians. Out of physicians and nurses, 57.1% and 49.4% had poor knowledge, respectively. Participants reported their own or colleagues' errors alike, but physicians tended to only provide verbal warning to their colleagues (36.8%), and nurses stated they would report the colleagues' errors, if it was serious (32.4%). Fear of blame and punishment and fear of legal ramification were the most important perceived barriers.

Conclusions:

Improvements in current medical error registry system, implementing effective educational courses, and modifying the curricula for students seem to be necessary to resolve the problem of underreporting and poor knowledge level.

Evaluation of the adverse events following immunization surveillance system in Guruve district, Mashonaland Central 2017

INTRODUCTION

An adverse event following immunisation is any untoward medical occurrence which follows vaccination. Frequency of adverse events ranges from 13% to 34% and they should be reported regardless of severity. From the beginning of 2016 to mid-2017, Guruve district in Zimbabwe did not report any AEFIs. This suggests the surveillance system may be failing to detect adverse events. We therefore evaluated the AEFI surveillance system in Guruve district.

METHODS

We conducted a surveillance system evaluation using the updated Centers for Disease Control guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. We interviewed health workers and caregivers of babies under 2 years in Guruve district. We also reviewed all records on AEFI surveillance for the period of January 2016 to November 2017.

RESULTS

We recruited 31 health workers and 33 caregivers into the study. Between January 2016 and mid-2017, 39% of the caregivers had children who had suffered AEFIs and 45% of the health workers had encountered AEFIs but none had been notified. The main reasons for failure to report AEFIs included health workers' fear of personal consequences and caregivers thinking that an adverse event was not serious enough to report. Knowledge of the surveillance system was good amongst the majority of health workers. All the resources needed by the surveillance system were available.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that health workers in Guruve district were afraid to report adverse events following immunization and caregivers were reluctant to report mild adverse events hence the surveillance system was performing poorly and was not useful. However, the stability of the system and the good knowledge gives a good foundation for improving the surveillance system.

Usability Testing of a Mobile App to Report Medication Errors Anonymously: Mixed-Methods Approach

Background

Reporting of medication errors is one of the essential mechanisms to identify risky health care systems and practices that lead to medication errors. Unreported medication errors are a real issue; one of the identified causes is a burdensome medication error reporting system. An anonymous and user-friendly mobile app for reporting medication errors could be an alternative method of reporting medication error in busy health care settings.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to report usability testing of the Medication Error Reporting App (MERA), a mobile app for reporting medication errors anonymously.

Methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods were employed involving 45 different testers (pharmacists, doctors, and nurses) from a large tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Quantitative data was retrieved using task performance and rating of MERA and qualitative data were retrieved through focus group discussions. Three sessions, with 15 testers each session, were conducted from January to March 2018.

Results

The majority of testers were pharmacists (23/45, 51%), female (35/45, 78%), and the mean age was 36 (SD 9) years. A total of 135 complete reports were successfully submitted by the testers (three reports per tester) and 79.2% (107/135) of the reports were correct. There was significant improvement in mean System Usability Scale scores in each session of the development process (P<.001) and mean time to report medication errors using the app was not significantly different between each session (P=.70) with an overall mean time of 6.7 (SD 2.4) minutes. Testers found the app easy to use, but doctors and nurses were unfamiliar with terms used especially medication process at which error occurred and type of error. Although, testers agreed the app can be used in the future for reporting, they were apprehensive about security, validation, and abuse of feedback featured in the app.

Conclusions

MERA can be used to report medication errors easily by various health care personnel and it has the capacity to provide feedback on reporting. However, education on medication error reporting should be provided to doctors and nurses in Malaysia and the security of the app needs to be established to boost reporting by this method.

[Management of medication errors in general medical practice: Study in a pluriprofessionnal health care center]

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are the most frequent medical care adverse events in France. Their management process used in hospital remains poorly applied in primary ambulatory care.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of our study was to assess medication error management in general ambulatory practice. The secondary objectives were the characterization of the errors and the analysis of their root causes in order to implement corrective measures.

METHODS

The study was performed in a pluriprofessionnal health care house, applying the stages and tools validated by the French high health authority, that we previously adapted to ambulatory medical cares.

RESULTS

During the 3 months study 4712 medical consultations were performed and we collected 64 medication errors. Most of affected patients were at the extreme ages of life (9,4 % before 9 years and 64 % after 70 years). Medication errors occurred at home in 39,1 % of cases, at pluriprofessionnal health care house (25,0 %) or at drugstore (17,2 %). They led to serious clinical consequences (classified as major, critical or catastrophic) in 17,2 % of cases. Drug induced adverse effects occurred in 5 patients, 3 of them needing hospitalization (1 patient recovered, 1 displayed sequelae and 1 died). In more than half of cases, the errors occurred at prescribing stage. The most frequent type of errors was the use of a wrong drug, different from that indicated for the patient (37,5 %) and poor treatment adherence (18,75 %). The systemic reported causes were a care process dysfunction (in coordination or procedure), the health care action context (patient home, not planned act, professional overwork), human factors such as patient and professional condition. The professional team adherence to the study was excellent.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates, for the first time in France, that medication errors management in ambulatory general medical care can be implemented in a pluriprofessionnal health care house with two conditions: the presence of a trained team coordinator, and the use of validated adapted and simple processes and tools. This study also shows that medications errors in general practice are specific of the care process organization. We identified vulnerable points, as transferring and communication between home and care facilities or conversely, medical coordination and involvement of the patient himself in his care.

Medication Error Reporting: Underreporting and Acceptability of Smartphone Application for Reporting among Health Care Professionals in Perak, Malaysia

Background and objectives In Malaysia, the national voluntary non-punitive Medication Error Reporting System (MER-S) has been available since 2009, with compiled reports indicating the underreporting of various medication errors (ME). This survey intends to determine the ME reporting practice among healthcare professionals and the acceptance of ME reporting by utilising smartphone application if it is available. Design A cross-sectional survey was conducted for two months in 2017 among doctors and pharmacists in publicly funded healthcare facilities in Perak, Malaysia. The survey was distributed through various professional WhatsApp chat groups, and reminders were sent twice to the respondents. Results A total of 334 doctors and pharmacists responded to the survey; the majority were pharmacists (61.7%) with a median age (in years) of 32 (interquartile range (IQR) 29-36) and work experience (in years) of 7.5 years (IQR 5-11). The rate of respondents being aware of the MER-S and having encountered ME at the workplace was high, at 73.4% and 96.1%, respectively. However, only 44.8% reported using the system. The reason hindering them from reporting ME was primarily being in a busy and hectic work environment. Pharmacists were more likely to report ME compared to doctors (adjusted odds ratio (adj OR) 10.51; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 5.34, 20.6), especially pharmacists who had frequent encounters with ME at work (adj OR 2.84; 95% CI: 1.70, 4.81) and who perceived that ME can be handled well (adj OR 3.52; 95% CI: 1.93, 6.44). They were more likely to report ME. A majority (90.7%) had downloaded one or more digital medical applications to aid their work. The speed of Internet connectivity at the workplace was rated as "fast" or "good" among 136 (40.7%) respondents but among 130 (38.9%), it was "average." The percentage of doctors and pharmacists that would report ME by utilising a smartphone application was 86.5% if one is available, and they preferred an application with a user-friendly interface, anonymity, and limited data-entry requirements. Conclusion Doctors and pharmacists were aware of MER-S and willing to report when they encountered ME. However, less than half of the respondents had used the system. With the primary concern of ME underreporting in a busy and hectic work environment, an alternative smartphone ME reporting application can be developed to complement the current MER-S considering that the respondents had positive responses to this method.