Predictions of the arrival time of coronal mass ejections at 1AU: an analysis of the causes of errors

Three existing models of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection (ICME) transit between the Sun and the Earth are compared to coronagraph and in situ observations: all three models are found to perform with a similar level of accuracy (i.e. an average error between observed and predicted 1AU transit times of approximately 11 h). To improve long-term space weather prediction, factors influencing CME transit are investigated. Both the removal of the plane of sky projection (as suffered by coronagraph derived speeds of Earth directed CMEs) and the use of observed values of solar wind speed, fail to significantly improve transit time prediction. However, a correlation is found to exist between the late/early arrival of an ICME and the width of the preceding sheath region, suggesting that the error is a geometrical effect that can only be removed by a more accurate determination of a CME trajectory and expansion. The correlation between magnetic field intensity and speed of ejecta at 1AU is also investigated. It is found to be weak in the body of the ICME, but strong in the sheath, if the upstream solar wind conditions are taken into account.

Errors associated with preparation of adult and paediatric parenteral nutrition in UK hospital pharmacies

Rationale: In UK hospitals, the preparation of all total parenteral nutrition (TPN) products must be made in the pharmacy as TPNs are categorised as high-risk injectables (NPSA/2007/20). The National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors in the UK since August 2003. This study reports on types of error associated with the preparation of TPNs, including the stage at which these were identified and potential and actual patient outcomes. Methods: Reports of compounding errors for the period 1/2004 - 3/2007 were analysed on an Excel spreadsheet. Results: Of a total of 3691 compounding error reports, 674 (18%) related to TPN products; 548 adult vs. 126 paediatric. A significantly higher proportion of adult TPNs (28% vs. 13% paediatric) were associated with labelling errors and a significantly higher proportion of paediatric TPNs (25% vs. 15% adult) were associated with incorrect transcriptions (Chi-Square Test; p<0.005). Labelling errors were identified equally by pharmacists (42%) and technicians (48%) with technicians detecting mainly at first check and pharmacists at final check. Transcription errors were identified mainly by technicians (65% vs. 27% pharmacist) at first check. Incorrect drug selection (13%) and calculation errors (9%) were associated with adult and paediatric TPN preparations in the same ratio. One paediatric TPN error detected at first check was considered potentially catastrophic; 31 (5%) errors were considered of major and 38 (6%) of moderate potential consequence. Five errors (2 moderate, 1 minor) were identified during or after administration. Conclusions: While recent UK patient safety initiatives are aimed at improving the safety of injectable medicines in clinical areas, the current study highlights safety problems that exist within pharmacy production units. This could be used in the creation of an error management tool for TPN compounding processes within hospital pharmacies.

The impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing and administration system on prescribing errors, administration errors and staff time: a before-and-after study

Objectives: To assess the impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and electronic medication administration record (EMAR) system on prescribing and administration errors, confirmation of patient identity before administration, and staff time. Design, setting and participants: Before-and-after study in a surgical ward of a teaching hospital, involving patients and staff of that ward. Intervention: Closed-loop electronic prescribing, automated dispensing, barcode patient identification and EMAR system. Main outcome measures: Percentage of new medication orders with a prescribing error, percentage of doses with medication administration errors (MAEs) and percentage given without checking patient identity. Time spent prescribing and providing a ward pharmacy service. Nursing time on medication tasks. Results: Prescribing errors were identified in 3.8% of 2450 medication orders pre-intervention and 2.0% of 2353 orders afterwards (p<0.001; χ2 test). MAEs occurred in 7.0% of 1473 non-intravenous doses pre-intervention and 4.3% of 1139 afterwards (p = 0.005; χ2 test). Patient identity was not checked for 82.6% of 1344 doses pre-intervention and 18.9% of 1291 afterwards (p<0.001; χ2 test). Medical staff required 15 s to prescribe a regular inpatient drug pre-intervention and 39 s afterwards (p = 0.03; t test). Time spent providing a ward pharmacy service increased from 68 min to 98 min each weekday (p = 0.001; t test); 22% of drug charts were unavailable pre-intervention. Time per drug administration round decreased from 50 min to 40 min (p = 0.006; t test); nursing time on medication tasks outside of drug rounds increased from 21.1% to 28.7% (p = 0.006; χ2 test). Conclusions: A closed-loop electronic prescribing, dispensing and barcode patient identification system reduced prescribing errors and MAEs, and increased confirmation of patient identity before administration. Time spent on medication-related tasks increased.