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. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.

Medication review in the elderly: how competent are community pharmacists in detecting drug-related problems?

Poster presented at the 5th PCNE Working Symposium 2016: “Work in Progress – Progress in Work”, 19-20 February 2016, Hillerød, Denmark.

A national e-Delphi towards the measurement of safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals

Objectives To determine the face and content validity of items for measuring safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals. Methods 128 items were drafted from content analysis of existing questionnaires and the literature, employing preferred terms of the WHO International Classification for Patient Safety (Portuguese version). A two-round e-Delphi was convened, using a purposive multidisciplinary panel. Hospital-based experts were asked to rate the relevance of items on a 7-point Likert scale and to comment on their clarity and completeness. Results The response rate was similar in both rounds (70.3% and 73.4%, respectively). In the first round 91/128 (71.1%) items reached the predefined level of positive consensus. In the second round 23 additional items reached positive consensus, as well as seven items newly derived by the panel. Conclusions Most items have face and content validity, indicating relevance and clarity, and can be included in a future questionnaire for measuring safe medication practices in Portuguese hospitals.

Virtual car accidents of epilepsy patients, interictal epileptic activity, and medication.

OBJECTIVE To investigate effects of interictal epileptic activity (IEA) and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on reactivity and aspects of the fitness to drive for epilepsy patients. METHODS Forty-six adult patients with demonstration of focal or generalized bursts of IEA in electroencephalography (EEG) readings within 1 year prior to inclusion irrespective of medication performed a car driving computer test or a single light flash test (39 patients performed both). Reaction times (RTs), virtual crashes, or lapses (RT ≥ 1 s in the car or flash test) were measured in an IEA burst-triggered fashion during IEA and compared with RT-measurements during unremarkable EEG findings in the same session. RESULTS IEA prolonged RTs both in the flash and car test (p < 0.001) in individual patients up to 200 ms. Generalized IEA with spike/waves (s/w) had the largest effect on RT prolongation (p < 0.001, both tests), whereas mean RT during normal EEG, age, gender, and number of AEDs had no effect. The car test was better than the flash test in detecting RT prolongations (p = 0.030). IEA increased crashes/lapses >26% in sessions with generalized IEA with s/w. The frequency of IEA-associated RT >1 s exceeded predictions (p < 0.001) based on simple RT shift, suggesting functional impairment beyond progressive RT prolongation by IEA. The number of AEDs correlated with prolonged RTs during normal EEG (p < 0.021) but not with IEA-associated RT prolongation or crashes/lapses. SIGNIFICANCE IEA prolonged RTs to varying extents, dependent on IEA type. IEA-associated RTs >1 s were more frequent than predicted, suggesting beginning cerebral decompensation of visual stimulus processing. AEDs somewhat reduced psychomotor speed, but it was mainly the IEA that contributed to an excess of virtual accidents.

The handbook of feedstuffs; production, formulation, medication,

Includes bibliographies.

Nicarbazin. Pt. 2, The development of immunity to coccidiosis during preventive medication with nicarbazin.

Mode of access: Internet.

Help with your medication /

Description based on: 1995 ; title from cover.

Recommended guidelines for medication administration in schools /

Mode of access: Internet.