Bryony Dean Franklin

Systematic Review of Medication Errors in Pediatric Patients

Objective: To systematically locate and review studies that have investigated the incidence of medication errors (MEs) in pediatric inpatients and identify common errors. Methods: A systematic search of studies related to MEs in children was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE (1951–April 2006), EMBASE (1966–April 2006), Pharm-line (1978–April 2006), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–April 2006), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982–April 2006), and British Nursing Index (1994–April 2006). Studies of the incidence and nature of MEs in pediatrics were included. The title, abstract, or full article was reviewed for relevance; any study not related to MEs in children was excluded. Results: Three methods were used to detect MEs in the studies reviewed: spontaneous reporting (n = 10), medication order or chart review (n = 14), or observation (n = 8). There was great variation in the definitions of ME used and the error rates reported. The most common type of ME was dosing error, often involving 10 times the actual dose required. Antibiotics and sedatives were the most common classes of drugs associated with MEs; these are probably among the most common drugs prescribed. Conclusions: Interpretation of the literature was hindered by variation in definitions employed by different researchers, varying research methods and setting, and a lack of theory-based research. Overall, it would appear that our initial concern about MEs in pediatrics has been validated; however, we do not know the actual size of the problem. Further work to determine the incidence and causes of MEs in pediatrics is urgently needed, as well as evaluation of the best interventions to reduce them.

The incidence and nature of prescribing and medication administration errors in paediatric inpatients

Objectives To determine the incidence and nature of prescribing and medication administration errors in paediatric inpatients. Design Prospective review of drug charts to identify prescribing errors and prospective observation of nurses preparing and administering drugs to identify medication administration errors. In addition, incident reports were collected for each ward studied. Participants Paediatric patients admitted to hospitals and nurses administering medications to these patients. Setting 11 wards (prescribing errors) and 10 wards (medication administration errors) across five hospitals (one specialist children’s teaching hospital, one nonteaching hospital and three teaching hospitals) in the London area (UK). Main outcome measures Number, types and incidence of prescribing and medication administration errors, using practitioner-based definitions. Results 391 prescribing errors were identified, giving an overall prescribing error rate of 13.2% of medication orders (95% CI 12.0 to 14.5). There was great variation in prescribing error rates between wards. Incomplete prescriptions were the most common type of prescribing error, and dosing errors the third most common. 429 medication administration errors were identified; giving an overall incidence of 19.1% (95% CI 17.5% to 20.7%) erroneous administrations. Errors in drug preparation were the most common, followed by incorrect rates of intravenous administration. Conclusions Prescribing and medication administration errors are not uncommon in paediatrics, partly as a result of the extra challenges in prescribing and administering medication to this patient group. The causes and extent of these errors need to be explored locally and improvement strategies pursued.

The frequency and potential causes of dispensing errors in a hospital pharmacy.

Objectives: To determine the frequency and types of dispensing errors identified both at the final check stage and outside of a UK hospital pharmacy, to explore the reasons why they occurred, and to make recommendations for their prevention.Method: A definition of a dispensing error and a classification system were developed. To study the frequency and types of errors, pharmacy staff recorded details of all errors identified at the final check stage during a two-week period; all errors identified outside of the department and reported during a one-year period were also recorded. During a separate six-week period, pharmacy staff making dispensing errors identified at the final check stage were interviewed to explore the causes; the findings were analysed using a model of human error.Main outcome measures: Percentage of dispensed items for which one or more dispensing errors were identified at the final check stage; percentage for which an error was reported outside of the pharmacy department; the active failures, error producing conditions and latent conditions that result in dispensing errors occurring.Results: One or more dispensing errors were identified at the final check stage in 2.1% of 4849 dispensed items, and outside of the pharmacy department in 0.02% of 194,584 items. The majority of those identified at the final check stage involved slips in picking products, or mistakes in making assumptions about the products concerned. Factors contributing to the errors included labelling and storage of containers in the dispensary, interruptions and distractions, a culture where errors are seen as being inevitable, and reliance on others to identify and rectify errors.Conclusion: Dispensing errors occur in about 2% of all dispensed items. About 1 in 100 of these is missed by the final check. The impact on dispensing errors of developments such as automated dispensing systems should be evaluated.

Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals: mixed method evaluation

Objectives To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation’s Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention The SPI1 was a compound (multi-component) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration—monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items)—there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for “difference in difference” 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from 17% (63) to 13% (49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.

Behavior change strategies to influence antimicrobial prescribing in acute care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUNDnAntimicrobial use in acute care is widely reported to be suboptimal. Inappropriate use of antimicrobials is a major contributing factor to the emergence of multidrug resistance and health care-associated infection. Addressing prescribing behavior is a key component of antimicrobial stewardship.nnnMETHODSnWe performed a novel systematic review of both qualitative and quantitative literature on antimicrobial prescribing behavior in acute care. We assessed the extent to which behavioral sciences and social marketing were used and whether this could be related to the effectiveness of reported outcomes. MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Business Source Complete, The Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) were searched for studies undertaken during the period January 1999-April 2011 and published in English.nnnRESULTSnFive qualitative and 5 quantitative studies met the quality criteria. Qualitative studies highlight the predominant influence of social norms, attitudes, and beliefs on antimicrobial prescribing behavior. Quantitative studies reporting interventions to optimize antimicrobial prescribing behavior do not use theoretical science or primary research to inform the design and choice of the interventions deployed.nnnCONCLUSIONSnDespite qualitative evidence demonstrating the impact of behavioral determinants and social norms on prescribing, these influences are not given due consideration in the design and evaluation of interventions. To ensure a better understanding of prescribing behaviors and to improve the quality of interventions and research in this area, the incorporation and application of behavioral sciences supported by appropriate multidisciplinary collaboration is recommended.

The incidence of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: an overview of the research methods.

Many different methods have been used to study the incidence of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients. The objectives of this review were to outline the methods used, highlight their strengths and limitations, and summarise the incidence of prescribing errors reported.Methods used may be retrospective or prospective and based on process or on outcome. Reported prescribing error rates vary widely, ranging from 0.3% to 39.1% of medication orders written and from 1% to 100% of hospital admissions. Unfortunately, there is no standard denominator for use when expressing prescribing error rates. It could be argued that the most meaningful is the number of medication orders written; however, it is also helpful to consider the number of medication orders written per patient stay in order to understand the risk that a given prescribing error rate poses to an individual patient. Because of wide variation in the definitions and methods used, it is difficult to make comparisons between different studies.Each method for identifying prescribing errors has advantages and disadvantages. Process-based studies potentially allow all errors to be identified, giving more scope for the identification of trends and learning opportunities, and it may be easier to collect sufficient data to show statistically significant changes in prescribing error rates following interventions to reduce them. However, studies based on process may be criticised for focusing on many minor errors that are very unlikely to have resulted in patient harm. Focusing instead on harm, as in outcome-based studies, allows efforts to reduce errors to be targeted on those areas that are likely to result in the highest impact. Therefore, the most appropriate method depends on the study’s aims. However, using a combination of methods is likely to be the most useful approach if comprehensive data are required.

Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals: controlled evaluation of second phase.

Objective To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation’s Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients’ satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting NHS hospitals in England. Participants Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal change was significant (7.3, 1.4 to 37.7; P=0.002), but the difference in difference was not significant (2.1, 0.4 to 11.1; P=0.236). There were no notable or significant changes in the pattern of prescribing errors, either over time or between control and SPI2 hospitals. Two items of medical history taking (exercise tolerance and occupation) showed significant improvement over time, across both control and SPI2 hospitals, but no additional SPI2 effect. The holistic review showed no significant changes in error rates either over time or between control and SPI2 hospitals. The explicit case note review of perioperative care showed that adherence rates for two of the four perioperative standards targeted by SPI2 were already good at baseline, exceeding 94% for antibiotic prophylaxis and 98% for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Intraoperative monitoring of temperature improved over time in both groups, but this was not significant (1.8, 0.4 to 7.6; P=0.279), and there were no additional effects of SPI2. A dramatic rise in consumption of soap and alcohol hand rub was similar in control and SPI2 hospitals (P=0.760 and P=0.889, respectively), as was the corresponding decrease in rates of Clostridium difficile and meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (P=0.652 and P=0.693, respectively). Mortality rates of medical patients included in the case note reviews in control hospitals increased from 17.3% (42/243) to 21.4% (24/112), while in SPI2 hospitals they fell from 10.3% (24/233) to 6.1% (7/114) (P=0.043). Fewer than 8% of deaths were classed as avoidable; changes in proportions could not explain the divergence of overall death rates between control and SPI2 hospitals. There was no significant difference in the rate of change in mortality in intensive care. Patients’ satisfaction improved in both control and SPI2 hospitals on all dimensions, but again there were no significant changes between the two groups of hospitals. Conclusions Many aspects of care are already good or improving across the NHS in England, suggesting considerable improvements in quality across the board. These improvements are probably due to contemporaneous policy activities relating to patient safety, including those with features similar to the SPI, and the emergence of professional consensus on some clinical processes. This phenomenon might have attenuated the incremental effect of the SPI, making it difficult to detect. Alternatively, the full impact of the SPI might be observable only in the longer term. The conclusion of this study could have been different if concurrent controls had not been used.

Appropriateness of use of medicines in elderly inpatients: qualitative study

Abstract Objectives To explore the processes leading to inappropriate use of medicines for elderly patients admitted for acute care. Design Qualitative study with semistructured interviews with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists; focus groups with inpatients; and observation on the ward by clinical pharmacists for one month. Setting Five acute wards for care of the elderly in Belgium. Participants 5 doctors, 4 nurses, and 3 pharmacists from five acute wards for the interviews; all professionals and patients on two acute wards for the observation and 17 patients (from the same two wards) for the focus groups. Results Several factors contributed to inappropriate prescribing, counselling, and transfer of information on medicines to primary care. Firstly, review of treatment was driven by acute considerations, the transfer of information on medicines from primary to secondary care was limited, and prescribing was often not tailored to elderly patients. Secondly, some doctors had a passive attitude towards learning: they thought it would take too long to find the information they needed about medicines and lacked self directed learning. Finally, a paternalistic doctor-patient relationship and difficulties in sharing decisions about treatment between prescribers led to inappropriate use of medicines. Several factors, such as the input of geriatricians and good communication between members of the multidisciplinary geriatric team, led to better use of medicines. Conclusions In this setting, improvements targeted at the abilities of individuals, better doctor-patient and doctor-doctor relationships, and systems for transferring information between care settings will increase the appropriate use of medicines in elderly people.

Interventions to optimise prescribing in care homes: systematic review

BACKGROUNDnprescribing for older people is a complex process and can elevate the risk of inappropriate prescribing, with potentially severe consequences. With a growing ageing population, strategies to improve prescribing in care homes are essential. Our aim was to review systematically the effects of interventions to optimise prescribing in care homes.nnnMETHODndatabases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and the Cochrane Library from 1990. Search terms included were nursing home, residential home, inappropriate prescribing, education and intervention. Two independent reviewers undertook screening and methodological quality assessment, using the Downs and Black rating scale.nnnRESULTSnthe search strategy retrieved 16 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Four intervention strategies were identified: staff education, multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings, pharmacist medication reviews and computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). Complex educational programmes that focused on improving patients behavioural management and drug prescribing were the most studied area, with six of eight studies highlighting an improvement in prescribing. Mixed results were found for pharmacist interventions. CDSSs were evaluated in two studies, with one showing a significant improvement in appropriate drug orders. Two of three studies examining MDT meetings found an overall improvement in appropriate prescribing. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the outcome measures.nnnCONCLUSIONnresults are mixed and there is no one interventional strategy that has proved to be effective. Nevertheless, education including academic detailing seems to show most promise. A multi-faceted approach and clearer policy guidelines are likely to be required to improve prescribing for these vulnerable patients.

Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a three-centre study of their prevalence, types and causes

Aim To compare the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in newly written medication orders and how quickly they were rectified, in three NHS organisations. Methods Errors in newly written inpatient and discharge medication orders were recorded in Spring/Summer 2009 by ward pharmacists on medical admissions and surgical wards, as well as the number of erroneous doses administered (or omitted) before errors were corrected. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effects of ward (nested within organisation) and clinical specialty, and whether the pharmacist had checked the patients medication history during data collection. Causes were explored using semistructured interviews with key informants. Results Overall, 1025 prescribing errors were identified in 974 of 6605 medication orders (14.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.8% to 15.6%). A mean of 0.9 doses were administered (or omitted) before each error was corrected (range 0–11), with differences between specialties and organisations. The error rate on medical admissions wards (16.3%) was significantly higher than that on surgical wards (12.2%), but this was accounted for by the higher proportion of prescribing being on admission, where omission of patients usual medication was often identified. There were significant differences among wards (and organisations). Contributing factors included lack of feedback on errors, poor documentation and communication of prescribing decisions, and lack of information about patients medication histories from primary care. Conclusions There were variations among wards, organisations and specialties in error rates and how quickly they were rectified. Exploring reasons for differences between organisations may be useful in identifying best practice and potential solutions.