Medication errors in veterinary anesthesia: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of medication errors (MEs) in veterinary medicine, with a focus on the perianesthetic period; to compare MEs in veterinary medicine with human anesthesia practice, and to describe factors contributing to the risk of MEs and strategies for error reduction.

DATABASES USED

PubMed and CAB abstracts; search terms: [("patient safety" or "medication error∗") AND veterin∗].

CONCLUSIONS

Human anesthesia is recognized as having a relatively high risk of MEs. In veterinary medicine, MEs were among the most commonly reported medical error. Predisposing factors for MEs in human and veterinary anesthesia include general (e.g. distraction, fatigue, workload, supervision) and specific factors (e.g. requirement for dose calculations when dosing for body mass, using several medications within a short time period and preparing syringes ahead of time). Data on MEs are most commonly collected in self-reporting systems, which very likely underestimate the true incidence, a problem acknowledged in human medicine. Case reports have described a variety of MEs in the perianesthetic period, including prescription, preparation and administration errors. Dogs and cats were the most frequently reported species, with MEs in cats more commonly associated with harmful outcomes compared with dogs. In addition to education and raising awareness, other strategies described for reducing the risk of MEs include behavioral, communication, identification, organizational, engineering and cognitive aids.

Clinical utility of a targeted smartphone application to aid veterinary students in calculating constant rate infusions and perioperative fluid drip rates

BACKGROUND

To compare the utility of a targeted smartphone application (TSPA) with a non-programmable calculator (NPC) when calculating fluid drip rates (FDR) and constant rate infusions (CRIs).

METHODS

In a prospective randomised clinical study, 48 fourth-year veterinary students entered one of four parallel groups involving two mock scenarios: fentanyl calculation using an NPC followed by lidocaine calculation using a TSPA, fentanyl (TSPA) followed by lidocaine (NPC), lidocaine (NPC) followed by fentanyl (TSPA) or lidocaine (TSPA) followed by fentanyl (NPC). Students calculated volume of drug added to maintenance fluids and drops/second that correctly administered the drug dose and FDR. Time to completion was assessed using an analysis of variance. A Fisher's exact test assessed the effect of study period, scenario and device in the proportion of correct/incorrect answers.

RESULTS

Participants took longer to complete the scenarios in period 1 and 2 with the NPC (380.7±195.6 seconds and 488±154.8 seconds, respectively) than the TSPA (247.5±88.8 seconds and 224±94.2 seconds, respectively) (P<0.0031 and P<0.0001). Participants were more likely to complete the scenarios incorrectly with the NPC (n=32) when compared with the TSPA (n=7) (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

TSPAs are more efficient and accurate when calculating CRIs and FDR compared with conventional methods. Medical mathematics must be emphasised during the veterinary curriculum.