Catherine Yoon

Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration.

BACKGROUND Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has been developed to verify medications by incorporating bar-code verification technology within an electronic medication-administration system (bar-code eMAR). METHODS We conducted a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study in an academic medical center that was implementing the bar-code eMAR. We assessed rates of errors in order transcription and medication administration on units before and after implementation of the bar-code eMAR. Errors that involved early or late administration of medications were classified as timing errors and all others as nontiming errors. Two clinicians reviewed the errors to determine their potential to harm patients and classified those that could be harmful as potential adverse drug events. RESULTS We observed 14,041 medication administrations and reviewed 3082 order transcriptions. Observers noted 776 nontiming errors in medication administration on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR (an 11.5% error rate) versus 495 such errors on units that did use it (a 6.8% error rate)--a 41.4% relative reduction in errors (P<0.001). The rate of potential adverse drug events (other than those associated with timing errors) fell from 3.1% without the use of the bar-code eMAR to 1.6% with its use, representing a 50.8% relative reduction (P<0.001). The rate of timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3% (P<0.001), but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly. Transcription errors occurred at a rate of 6.1% on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR but were completely eliminated on units that did use it. CONCLUSIONS Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and in medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. Our data show that the bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243373.)

Rates of Medical Errors and Preventable Adverse Events Among Hospitalized Children Following Implementation of a Resident Handoff Bundle

IMPORTANCE Handoff miscommunications are a leading cause of medical errors. Studies comprehensively assessing handoff improvement programs are lacking. OBJECTIVE To determine whether introduction of a multifaceted handoff program was associated with reduced rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events, fewer omissions of key data in written handoffs, improved verbal handoffs, and changes in resident-physician workflow. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective intervention study of 1255 patient admissions (642 before and 613 after the intervention) involving 84 resident physicians (42 before and 42 after the intervention) from July-September 2009 and November 2009-January 2010 on 2 inpatient units at Boston Childrens Hospital. INTERVENTIONS Resident handoff bundle, consisting of standardized communication and handoff training, a verbal mnemonic, and a new team handoff structure. On one unit, a computerized handoff tool linked to the electronic medical record was introduced. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were the rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events measured by daily systematic surveillance. The secondary outcomes were omissions in the printed handoff document and resident time-motion activity. RESULTS Medical errors decreased from 33.8 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 27.3-40.3) to 18.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 14.7-21.9; P < .001), and preventable adverse events decreased from 3.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 1.7-4.8) to 1.5 (95% CI, 0.51-2.4) per 100 admissions (P = .04) following the intervention. There were fewer omissions of key handoff elements on printed handoff documents, especially on the unit that received the computerized handoff tool (significant reductions of omissions in 11 of 14 categories with computerized tool; significant reductions in 2 of 14 categories without computerized tool). Physicians spent a greater percentage of time in a 24-hour period at the patient bedside after the intervention (8.3%; 95% CI 7.1%-9.8%) vs 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-12.2%; P = .03). The average duration of verbal handoffs per patient did not change. Verbal handoffs were more likely to occur in a quiet location (33.3%; 95% CI, 14.5%-52.2% vs 67.9%; 95% CI, 50.6%-85.2%; P = .03) and private location (50.0%; 95% CI, 30%-70% vs 85.7%; 95% CI, 72.8%-98.7%; P = .007) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Implementation of a handoff bundle was associated with a significant reduction in medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children. Improvements in verbal and written handoff processes occurred, and resident workflow did not change adversely.

The Costs of Adverse Drug Events in Community Hospitals

BACKGROUND Adverse drug events (ADEs) occur often in hospitals, causing high morbidity and a longer length of stay (LOS), and are costly. However, most studies on the impact of ADEs have been conducted in tertiary referral centers, which are systematically different than community hospitals, where the bulk of care is delivered, and most available data about ADE costs in any setting are dated. Costs in community settings are generally lower than in academic hospitals, and the costs of ADEs might be as well. To assess the additional costs and LOS associated with patients with ADEs, a multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in six community hospitals with 100 to 300 beds in Massachusetts during a 20-month observation period (January 2005-August 2006). METHODS A random sample of 2,100 patients (350 patients per study site) was drawn from a pool of 109,641 patients treated within the 20-month observation period. Unadjusted and adjusted cost of ADEs as well as LOS were calculated. RESULTS ADEs were associated with an increased adjusted cost of

Risk Factors in Preventable Adverse Drug Events in Pediatric Outpatients

3,420 and an adjusted increase in length of stay (LOS) of 3.15 days. For preventable ADEs, the respective figures were +

Occurrence of adverse, often preventable, events in community hospitals involving nephrotoxic drugs or those excreted by the kidney

3,511 and +3.37 days. The severity of the ADE was also associated with higher costs--the costs were +

Medication errors in paediatric outpatients

2,852 for significant ADEs (LOS +2.77 days), +

Impact of Vendor Computerized Physician Order Entry in Community Hospitals

3,650 for serious ADEs (LOS +3.47 days), and +

The role of advice in medication administration errors in the pediatric ambulatory setting.

8,116 for life-threatening ADEs (LOS +5.54 days, all p < .001). CONCLUSIONS ADEs in community hospitals cost more than

Return on Investment for Vendor Computerized Physician Order Entry in Four Community Hospitals: The Importance of Decision Support

3,000 dollars on average and an average increase of LOS of 3.1 days--increments that were similar to previous estimates from academic institutions. The LOS increase was actually greater. A number of approaches, including computerized provider order entry and bar coding, have the potential to improve medication safety.

Prospective Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Outcomes in Intensive Care: The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study*

OBJECTIVE To determine whether there are racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, parental linguistic, or parental educational disparities in children who experienced an adverse drug event (ADE) in the ambulatory setting. STUDY DESIGN We conducted a prospective cohort study of pediatric patients <21 years seen during 2-month study periods from July 2002 to April 2003 at 6 office practices in Boston. The primary outcome measure was ADEs. Descriptive analysis of patient characteristics and types of ADEs experienced was followed by multivariate analysis to determine risk factors associated with presence of a preventable ADE. RESULTS A total of 1689 patients receiving 2155 prescriptions were analyzed via a survey and chart review. Overall, 242 children (14%) experienced an ADE, of which 55 (23%) had a preventable ADE and 186 (77%) had a non-preventable ADE. In multivariate analysis, children with multiple prescriptions (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.11) were at increased risk of having a preventable ADE, controlling for parental education, racial/ethnic, English proficiency, practice type, and duration of care. CONCLUSIONS Children with multiple prescriptions are at increased risk of having a preventable ADE. Further attention should be directed toward improved communication among healthcare providers and patients.