Steven D Williams

Driving Plasticity in Human Adult Motor Cortex Is Associated with Improved Motor Function after Brain Injury

Changes in somatosensory input can remodel human cortical motor organization, yet the input characteristics that promote reorganization and their functional significance have not been explored. Here we show with transcranial magnetic stimulation that sensory-driven reorganization of human motor cortex is highly dependent upon the frequency, intensity, and duration of stimulus applied. Those patterns of input associated with enhanced excitability (5 Hz, 75% maximal tolerated intensity for 10 min) induce stronger cortical activation to fMRI. When applied to acutely dysphagic stroke patients, swallowing corticobulbar excitability is increased mainly in the undamaged hemisphere, being strongly correlated with an improvement in swallowing function. Thus, input to the human adult brain can be programmed to promote beneficial changes in neuroplasticity and function after cerebral injury.

Causes of Medication Administration Errors in Hospitals: a Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence

BackgroundUnderlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented to minimise their occurrence.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review and appraise empirical evidence relating to the causes of medication administration errors (MAEs) in hospital settings.Data SourcesNine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ASSIA, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Social Science Citations Index) were searched between 1985 and May 2013.Study SelectionInclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible publications through title analysis followed by abstract and then full text examination. English language publications reporting empirical data on causes of MAEs were included. Reference lists of included articles and relevant review papers were hand searched for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they did not report data on specific MAEs, used accounts from individuals not directly involved in the MAE concerned or were presented as conference abstracts with insufficient detail.Data Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsA total of 54 unique studies were included. Causes of MAEs were categorised according to Reason’s model of accident causation. Studies were assessed to determine relevance to the research question and how likely the results were to reflect the potential underlying causes of MAEs based on the method(s) used.ResultsSlips and lapses were the most commonly reported unsafe acts, followed by knowledge-based mistakes and deliberate violations. Error-provoking conditions influencing administration errors included inadequate written communication (prescriptions, documentation, transcription), problems with medicines supply and storage (pharmacy dispensing errors and ward stock management), high perceived workload, problems with ward-based equipment (access, functionality), patient factors (availability, acuity), staff health status (fatigue, stress) and interruptions/distractions during drug administration. Few studies sought to determine the causes of intravenous MAEs. A number of latent pathway conditions were less well explored, including local working culture and high-level managerial decisions. Causes were often described superficially; this may be related to the use of quantitative surveys and observation methods in many studies, limited use of established error causation frameworks to analyse data and a predominant focus on issues other than the causes of MAEs among studies.LimitationsAs only English language publications were included, some relevant studies may have been missed.ConclusionsLimited evidence from studies included in this systematic review suggests that MAEs are influenced by multiple systems factors, but if and how these arise and interconnect to lead to errors remains to be fully determined. Further research with a theoretical focus is needed to investigate the MAE causation pathway, with an emphasis on ensuring interventions designed to minimise MAEs target recognised underlying causes of errors to maximise their impact.

Prevalence and Nature of Medication Administration Errors in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Direct Observational Evidence:

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review empirical evidence on the prevalence and nature of medication administration errors (MAEs) in health care settings. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health Management Information Consortium) were searched (1985-May 2012). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language publications reporting MAE data using the direct observation method were included, providing an error rate could be determined. Reference lists of all included articles were screened for additional studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: In all, 91 unique studies were included. The median error rate (interquartile range) was 19.6% (8.6–28.3%) of total opportunities for error including wrong-time errors and 8.0% (5.1–10.9%) without timing errors, when each dose could be considered only correct or incorrect. The median rate of error when more than 1 error could be counted per dose was 25.6% (20.8–41.7%) and 20.7% (9.7–30.3%), excluding wrong-time errors. A higher median MAE rate was observed for the intravenous route (53.3% excluding timing errors (IQR 26.6–57.9%)) compared to when all administration routes were studied (20.1%; 9.0–24.6%), where each dose could accumulate more than one error. Studies consistently reported wrong time, omission, and wrong dosage among the 3 most common MAE subtypes. Common medication groups associated with MAEs were those affecting nutrition and blood, gastrointestinal system, cardiovascular system, central nervous system, and antiinfectives. Medication administration error rates varied greatly as a product of differing medication error definitions, data collection methods, and settings of included studies. Although MAEs remained a common occurrence in health care settings throughout the time covered by this review, potential targets for intervention to minimize MAEs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should attend to the wide methodological inconsistencies between studies to gain a greater measure of comparability to help guide any forthcoming interventions.

Risk factors for hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events.

To identify predictors of hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and to determine the preventability of ADEs in patients admitted to two hospitals.

Understanding the attitudes of hospital pharmacists to reporting medication incidents: A qualitative study

BACKGROUNDnThe attitudes of doctors, nurses, and midwives to reporting errors in health care have been extensively studied, but there is very limited literature considering pharmacists attitudes to medication error reporting schemes, in particular in hospitals.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo explore and understand the attitudes of hospital pharmacists to reporting medication incidents.nnnMETHODSnFocus groups were conducted with a total of 17 hospital pharmacists from 4 purposively sampled hospitals in the North West of England. The recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and subject to thematic analysis using a framework analysis approach.nnnRESULTSnPharmacists agreed that the high prevalence of medication errors, especially prescribing errors of omission, has led to an acceptance of not using hospital reporting systems. There were different personal thresholds for reporting medication errors but pharmacists agreed that the severity of any patient harm was the primary reporting driver. Hospital pharmacists had specific anxieties about the effects of reporting on interprofessional working relationships with doctors and nurses, but felt more confident to report if they had previously witnessed positive feedback and system change following an error. Existing reporting forms were considered too cumbersome and time consuming to complete, as pharmacists felt the need to find and record every possible detail.nnnCONCLUSIONSnHospital pharmacists understood the importance of reporting medication incidents, but because of the high number of errors they encounter do not report them as often as may be expected. The decision to report was a complex process that depended on the severity of patient harm, anxieties about harming interprofessional relationships, prior experience of the outcomes from reporting, and the perceived effort required to use reporting forms.

Impact of interventions designed to reduce medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review.

BackgroundThere is a need to identify effective interventions to minimize the threat posed by medication administration errors (MAEs).ObjectiveOur objective was to review and critically appraise interventions designed to reduce MAEs in the hospital setting.Data sourcesTen electronic databases were searched between 1985 and November 2013.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (CTs) reporting rates of MAEs or related adverse drug events between an intervention group and a comparator group were included. Data from each study were independently extracted and assessed for potential risk of bias by two authors. Risk ratios (RRs, with 95xa0% confidence intervals [CIs]) were used to examine the effect of an intervention.ResultsSix RCTs and seven CTs were included. Types of interventions clustered around four main themes: medication use technology (nxa0=xa04); nurse education and training (nxa0=xa03); changing practice in anesthesia (nxa0=xa02); and ward system changes (nxa0=xa04). Reductions in MAE rates were reported by five studies; these included automated drug dispensing (RR 0.72, 95xa0% CI 0.53–1.00), computerized physician order entry (RR 0.51, 95 % 0.40–0.66), barcode-assisted medication administration with electronic administration records (RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.53–0.95), nursing education/training using simulation (RR 0.17, 95 % CI 0.08–0.38), and clinical pharmacist-led training (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.67–0.87). Increased or equivocal outcome rates were found for the remaining studies. Weaknesses in the internal or external validity were apparent for most included studies.LimitationsTheses and conference proceedings were excluded and data produced outside commercial publishing were not searched.ConclusionsThere is emerging evidence of the impact of specific interventions to reduce MAEs in hospitals, which warrant further investigation using rigorous and standardized study designs. Theory-driven efforts to understand the underlying causes of MAEs may lead to more effective interventions in the future.

Medication errors: how reliable are the severity ratings reported to the national reporting and learning system?

OBJECTIVEnTo examine: (1) the reliability of the severity rating scale used by the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales for medication errors; and (2) the likelihood of reporting medication errors among healthcare professionals.nnnSETTINGnA 900-bed acute university teaching hospital in the North West of England.nnnPARTICIPANTSnForty healthcare professionals (10 doctors, 10 nurses, 10 pharmacists and 10 pharmacy technicians).nnnMETHODSnParticipants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire containing nine medication error scenarios on two separate occasions. They were asked to rate the severity of each incident using the NRLS severity rating scale and also the likelihood of reporting the incident via the hospital incident reporting system. ThennnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnincluded comparisons of severity ratings and likelihood of reporting by the four health professional groups. Test-retest reliability of the severity ratings was also examined within and between professional groups.nnnRESULTSnPharmacists and nurses were significantly more likely to report the errors if they had witnessed them (mean scores 36.3 and 36.2, respectively, compared with 27.9 for doctors, P < 0.001). Nurses and pharmacy technicians assigned higher severity ratings for medication errors (mean scores 23.6 and 25, respectively) than pharmacists or doctors (both 19.4). Both within and between healthcare professional groups, there was wide variation in the assignment of medication error severity ratings.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThere are marked differences in the severity ratings for medication errors graded against the NRLS severity criteria between different health professional groups and at different time points rated by the same individuals.

Prevalence, Nature, Severity and Risk Factors for Prescribing Errors in Hospital Inpatients: Prospective Study in 20 UK Hospitals

IntroductionIt has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors.MethodsPharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors.ResultsPharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8xa0% (95xa0% confidence interval [CI] 8.6–9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1xa0year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95xa0% CI 1.80–2.52) or 2xa0years in training (OR 2.23; 95xa0% CI 1.89–2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70xa0% (OR 1.70; 95xa0% CI 1.61–1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders.ConclusionThe problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

Understanding the causes of intravenous medication administration errors in hospitals: a qualitative critical incident study.

Objectives To investigate the underlying causes of intravenous medication administration errors (MAEs) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Setting Two NHS teaching hospitals in the North West of England. Participants Twenty nurses working in a range of inpatient clinical environments were identified and recruited using purposive sampling at each study site. Primary outcome measures Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse participants using the critical incident technique, where they were asked to discuss perceived causes of intravenous MAEs that they had been directly involved with. Transcribed interviews were analysed using the Framework approach and emerging themes were categorised according to Reasons model of accident causation. Results In total, 21 intravenous MAEs were discussed containing 23 individual active failures which included slips and lapses (n=11), mistakes (n=8) and deliberate violations of policy (n=4). Each active failure was associated with a range of error and violation provoking conditions. The working environment was implicated when nurses lacked healthcare team support and/or were exposed to a perceived increased workload during ward rounds, shift changes or emergencies. Nurses frequently reported that the quality of intravenous dose-checking activities was compromised due to high perceived workload and working relationships. Nurses described using approaches such as subconscious functioning and prioritising to manage their duties, which at times contributed to errors. Conclusions Complex interactions between active and latent failures can lead to intravenous MAEs in hospitals. Future interventions may need to be multimodal in design in order to mitigate these risks and reduce the burden of intravenous MAEs.

Modulation of activity in swallowing motor cortex following esophageal acidification: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

Esophageal acid exposure induces sensory and motility changes in the upper gastrointestinal tract; however, the mechanisms involved and the effects on activity in the brain regions that control swallowing are unknown. The aim of this study was to examine functional changes in the cortical swallowing network as a result of esophageal acidification using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Seven healthy volunteers (3 female, age rangexa0=xa020–30 years) were randomized to receive either a 0.1 M hydrochloric acid or (control) saline infusion for 30 min into the distal esophagus. Postinfusion, subjects underwent four 8 min blocks of fMRI over 1 h. These alternated between 1 min swallowing water boluses and 1 min rest. Three-dimensional cluster analysis for group brain activation during swallowing was performed together with repeated-measures ANOVA for differences between acid and saline. After acid infusion, swallowing-induced activation was seen predominantly in postcentral gyrus (pxa0<xa00.004). ANOVA comparison of acid with saline showed a significant relative reduction in activation during swallowing of the precentral gyrus (M1) BA 4 (pxa0<xa00.008) in response to acid infusion. No areas of increased cortical activation were identified with acid vs. saline during swallowing. Esophageal acidification inhibits motor and association cortical areas during a swallowing task, probably via changes in vagal afferent or nociceptive input from the esophagus. This mechanism may play a protective role, facilitating acid clearance by reduced descending central motor inhibition of enteric/spinal reflexes, or by preventing further ingestion of injurious agents.