Errors in the administration of medication in inpatient hospitals: A systematic review of the research literature on commercial computerized physician order entry systems

Errors in the administration of medication represent a significant loss of medical resources and pose life altering or life threatening risks to patients. This paper considered the question, what impact do Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems have on medication errors in the hospital inpatient environment? Previous reviews have examined evidence of the impact of CPOE on medication errors, but have come to ambiguous conclusions as to the impact of CPOE and decision support systems (DSS). Forty-three papers were identified. Thirty-one demonstrated a significant reduction in prescribing error rates for all or some drug types; decreases in minor errors were most often reported. Several studies reported increases in the rate of duplicate orders and failures to remove contraindicated drugs, often attributed to inappropriate design or to an inability to operate the system properly. The evidence on the effectiveness of CPOE to reduce errors in medication administration is compelling though it is limited by modest study sample sizes and designs. ^

The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous system in prevention of percutaneous injury in two hospitals

This study assessed if hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous connection system reduces the number of reported percutaneous injuries, overall and those specifically due to intravenous connection activities.^ Incidence rates were compared before and after hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous system at two hospitals, a full service general hospital and a pediatric hospital. The years 1989-1991 were designated as pre-implementation and 1993 was designated as post-implementation. Data from 1992 were not included in the effectiveness evaluation to allow employees to become familiar with use of the new device. The two hospitals showed rate ratios of 1.37 (95% CI = 1.22-1.54, p $\le$.0001) and 1.63 (95% CI = 1.34-1.97, p $\le$.0001), or a 27.1% and a 38.6% reduction in overall injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for intravenous connection injuries were 2.67 (95% CI = 1.89-3.78, p $\le$.0001) and 3.35 (95% CI = 1.87-6.02, p $\le$.0001), or a 62.5% and a 69.9% reduction in injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for all non-intravenous connection injuries were calculated to control for factors other than device implementation that may have been operating to reduce the injury rate. These rate ratios were lower, 1.21 and 1.44, demonstrating the magnitude of injury reduction due to factors other than device implementation. It was concluded that the device was effective in reduction of numbers of reported percutaneous injuries.^ Use-effectiveness of the system was also assessed by a survey of randomly selected device users to determine satisfaction with the device, frequency of use and barriers to use. Four hundred seventy-eight surveys were returned for a response rate of 50.9%. Approximately 94% of respondents at both hospitals expressed satisfaction with the needleless system and recommended continued use. The survey also revealed that even though over 50% of respondents report using the device "always" or "most of the time" for intravenous medication administration, flushing lines, and connecting secondary intravenous lines, needles were still being used for these same activities. Compatibility, accessibility and other technical problems were reported as reasons for using needles for these activities. These problems must be addressed, by both manufacturers and users, before the needleless system will be effective in prevention of all intravenous connection injuries. ^

A comparison of adherence with minocycline treatment in Parkinson's disease and rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

Background: Little is known about the effects on patient adherence when the same study drug is administered in the same dose in two populations with two different diseases in two different clinical trials. The Minocycline in Rheumatoid Arthritis (MIRA) trial and the NIH Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's disease (NET-PD) Futility Study I provide a unique opportunity to do the above and to compare methods measuring adherence. This study may increase understanding of the influence of disease and adverse events on patient adherence and will provide insights to investigators selecting adherence assessment methods in clinical trials of minocycline and other drugs in future.^ Methods: Minocycline adherence by pill count and the effect of adverse events was compared in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials using multivariable linear regression. Within the MIRA trial, agreement between assay and pill count was compared. The association of adverse events with assay adherence was examined using multivariable logistic regression.^ Results: Adherence derived from pill count in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials did not differ significantly. Adverse events potentially related to minocycline did not appear useful to predict minocycline adherence. In the MIRA trial, adherence measured by pill count appears higher than adherence measured by assay. Agreement between pill count and assay was poor (kappa statistic = 0.25).^ Limitations: Trial and disease are completely confounded and hence the independent effect of disease on adherence to minocycline treatment cannot be studied.^ Conclusion: Simple pill count may be preferred over assay in the minocycline clinical trials to measure adherence. Assays may be less sensitive in a clinical setting where appointments are not scheduled in relation to medication administration time, given assays depend on many pharmacokinetic and instrument-related factors. However, pill count can be manipulated by the patient. Another study suggested that self-report method is more sensitive than pill count method in differentiating adherence from non-adherence. An effect of medication-related adverse events on adherence could not be detected.^

Nursing-related medication errors: A review of factors that facilitate and hinder error reporting, and recommendations for improvement

Medication errors, one of the most frequent types of medical errors, are a common cause of patient harm in hospital systems today. Nurses at the bedside are in a position to encounter many of these errors since they are there at the start of the process (ordering/prescribing) and the end of the process (administration). One of the recommendations from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) report, "To Err is Human," was for organizations to identify and learn from medical errors through event reporting systems. While many organizations have reporting systems in place, research studies report a significant amount of underreporting by nurses. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify contributing factors related to the reporting and not reporting of medication errors by nurses at the bedside.^ Articles included in the literature review were primary or secondary studies, dated January 1, 2000 – July 2009, related to nursing medication error reporting. All 634 articles were reviewed with an algorithm developed to standardize the review process and help filter out those that did not meet the study criteria. In addition, 142 article bibliographies were reviewed to find additional studies that were not found in the original literature search.^ After reviewing the 634 articles and the additional 108 articles discovered in the bibliography review, 41 articles met the study criteria and were used in the systematic literature review results.^ Fear of punitive reactions to medication errors was a frequent barrier to error reporting. Nurses fear reactions from their leadership, peers, patients and their families, nursing boards, and the media. Anonymous reporting systems and departments/organizations with a strong safety culture in place helped to encourage the reporting of medication errors by nursing staff.^ Many of the studies included in this literature review do not allow results that can be generalized. The majority of them took place in single institutions/organizations with limited sample sizes. Stronger studies with larger sample sizes need to be performed, utilizing data collection methods that have been validated, to determine stronger correlations between safety cultures and nurse error reporting.^

Predictors of benzodiazepine self -administration behavior in anxious patients

The purpose of this study was to examine factors that may be associated with benzodiazepine (BZ) self-administration and risks of dependence in anxious patients. Preliminary work included examination of psychosocial characteristics and subjective drug response as potential predictors of medication use. Fifty-five M, F patients with generalized anxiety or panic disorder participated in a 3-week outpatient Choice Procedure in which they self-medicated “as needed” with alprazolam (Alz) and placebo. Findings showed that a large amount of variance in alprazolam preference, frequency, and quantity of use could be predicted by measures of anxiety, drug liking, and certain personality characteristics. The primary study extended this work by examining whether individual differences in Alz sensitivity also predict patterns of use. Twenty anxious patients participated in the study, which required 11 weekly clinic visits. Ten of these also participated in a baseline assessment of HPA-axis function that involved 24-hour monitoring of cortisol and ACTH levels and a CRH Stimulation Test. This assessment was conducted on the basis of prior evidence that steroid metabolites exert neuromodulatory effects on the GABA A receptor and that HPA-axis function may be related to BZ sensitivity and long-term disability in anxious patients. Patients were classified as either HIGH or LOW users based on their p.r.n. patterns of Alz use during the first 3 weeks of the study. They then participated in a 4-week dose response trial in which they received prescribed doses of medication (placebo, 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0mg Alz), each taken TID for 1 week. The dose response trial was followed by a second 3-week Choice Procedure. Findings were not indicative of biological differences in Alz sensitivity between the HIGH and LOW users. However, the HIGH users had higher baseline anxiety and greater anxiolytic response to Alz than the LOW users. Anxiolytic benefits of p.r.n. and prescribed dosing were shown to be comparable, and patients' conservative patterns of p.r.n. medication use were not affected by the period of prescribed dosing. Although there was not strong evidence to suggest relationships between HPA-axis function and Alz use or sensitivity, interesting findings emerged about the relationship between HPA-axis function and anxiety. ^