Organisational Factors Contributing to Violations by Rural and Remote Area Nurses during Medication Administration

Medication errors are a leading cause of unintended harm to patients in Australia and internationally. Research in this area has paid relatively little attention to the interactions between organisational factors and violations of procedures in producing errors, although violations have been found to increase the likelihood of these errors. This study investigated the role of organisational factors in contributing to violations by nurses when administering medications. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire completed by 506 nurses working in either rural or remote areas in Queensland, Australia. This instrument was used to develop a path model wherein organisational variables predicted 21% of the variance in self-reported violations. Expectations of medical officers mediated the relationship between working conditions of nursing staff and violation behaviour.

Streamlining the medication process improves safety in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Multiple interventions were made to optimize the medication process in our intensive care unit (ICU). 1 Transcriptions from the medical order form to the administration plan were eliminated by merging both into a single document; 2 the new form was built in a logical sequence and was highly structured to promote completeness and standardization of information; 3 frequently used drug names, approved units, and fixed routes were pre-printed; 4 physicians and nurses were trained with regard to the correct use of the new form. This study was aimed at evaluating the impact of these interventions on clinically significant types of medication errors. METHODS: Eight types of medication errors were measured by a prospective chart review before and after the interventions in the ICU of a public tertiary care hospital. We used an interrupted time-series design to control the secular trends. RESULTS: Over 85 days, 9298 lines of drug prescription and/or administration to 294 patients, corresponding to 754 patient-days were collected and analysed for the three series before and three series following the intervention. Global error rate decreased from 4.95 to 2.14% (-56.8%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The safety of the medication process in our ICU was improved by simple and inexpensive interventions. In addition to the optimization of the prescription writing process, the documentation of intravenous preparation, and the scheduling of administration, the elimination of the transcription in combination with the training of users contributed to reducing errors and carried an interesting potential to increase safety.

Prevalence and factors associated with incidents related to medication in surgical patients

The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and factors associated with the occurrence of incidents related to medication, registered in the medical records of patients admitted to a Surgical Clinic, in 2010. This is a cross-sectional study, conducted at a university hospital, with a sample of 735 hospitalizations. Was performed the categorization of types of incidents, multivariate analysis of regression logistic and calculated the prevalence. The prevalence of drug-related incidents was estimated at 48.0% and were identified, as factors related to the occurrence of these incidents: length of hospitalization more than four days, prescribed three or more medications per day and realization of surgery intervention. It is expected to have contributed for the professionals and area managers can identify risky situations and rethink their actions.

Estudi comparatiu: errors de les infermeres en la preparació i l'administració de la medicació segons dos sistemes de distribució

Introducció: Els errors de medicació són definits com qualsevol incident prevenible que pot causar dany al pacient o donar lloc a una utilització inapropiada dels medicaments, quan aquests estan sota el control dels professionals sanitaris o del pacient. Els errors en la preparació i l’administració de medicació són els més comuns de l’àrea hospitalària i, tot i la llarga cadena per la qual passa el fàrmac, el professional d’infermeria és el últim responsable de l’acció, tenint així, un paper molt important en la seguretat del pacient. Les infermeres dediquen el 40% del temps de la seva jornada laboral en tasques relacionades amb la medicació. Objectiu: Determinar si les infermeres produeixen més errors si treballen amb sistemes de distribució de medicació de stock o en sistemes de distribució unidosis de medicació. Metodologia: Estudi quantitatiu, observacional i descriptiu, on la notificació d’errors (o oportunitats d’error) realitzats per la infermera, en les fases de preparació i administració de medicació, es farà mitjançant un qüestionari autoelaborat. Els elements a identificar seran: el tipus d’error, les causes que poden haver--‐lo produït, la seva potencial gravetat i qui l’ha pogut evitar; així com el tipus de professional que l’ha produït. Altres dades rellevants són: el medicament implicat junt amb la dosis i la via d’administració i el sistema de distribució utilitzat. Mostreig i mostra: El mostreig serà no probabilístic i per conveniència. S’escolliran aquelles infermeres que l’investigador consideri amb les característiques necessàries per participar en l’estudi, així que la mostra estarà formada per les infermeres les quals treballen a la unitat 40 de l’Hospital del Mar i utilitzen un sistema de distribució de medicació de dosis unitàries i les infermeres que treballen a urgències (concretament a l’àrea de nivell dos) de l’Hospital del Mar les quals treballen amb un sistema de distribució de medicació de stock.

Protocol for the PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in primary care. The aims of this study are to determine the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of a pharmacist-led information-technology-based complex intervention compared with simple feedback in reducing proportions of patients at risk from potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management in general (family) practice. Methods: Research subject group: "At-risk" patients registered with computerised general practices in two geographical regions in England. Design: Parallel group pragmatic cluster randomised trial. Interventions: Practices will be randomised to either: (i) Computer-generated feedback; or (ii) Pharmacist-led intervention comprising of computer-generated feedback, educational outreach and dedicated support. Primary outcome measures: The proportion of patients in each practice at six and 12 months post intervention: - with a computer-recorded history of peptic ulcer being prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs - with a computer-recorded diagnosis of asthma being prescribed beta-blockers - aged 75 years and older receiving long-term prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or loop diuretics without a recorded assessment of renal function and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. Secondary outcome measures; These relate to a number of other examples of potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management. Economic analysis: An economic evaluation will be done of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), comparing the pharmacist-led intervention with simple feedback. Qualitative analysis: A qualitative study will be conducted to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals and NHS managers concerning the interventions, and investigate possible reasons why the interventions prove effective, or conversely prove ineffective. Sample size: 34 practices in each of the two treatment arms would provide at least 80% power (two-tailed alpha of 0.05) to demonstrate a 50% reduction in error rates for each of the three primary outcome measures in the pharmacist-led intervention arm compared with a 11% reduction in the simple feedback arm. Discussion: At the time of submission of this article, 72 general practices have been recruited (36 in each arm of the trial) and the interventions have been delivered. Analysis has not yet been undertaken.

PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors in general practice are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. Building on previous descriptive, qualitative and pilot work, we sought to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and likely generalisability of a complex pharm acist-led IT-based intervention aiming to improve prescribing safety in general practice. Objectives: We sought to: • Test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led IT-based complex intervention using educational outreach and practical support is more effective than simple feedback in reducing the proportion of patients at risk from errors in prescribing and medicines management in general practice. • Conduct an economic evaluation of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). • Analyse data recorded by pharmacists, summarising the proportions of patients judged to be at clinical risk, the actions recommended by pharmacists, and actions completed in the practices. • Explore the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and NHS managers concerning the intervention; investigate potential explanations for the observed effects, and inform decisions on the future roll-out of the pharmacist-led intervention • Examine secular trends in the outcome measures of interest allowing for informal comparison between trial practices and practices that did not participate in the trial contributing to the QRESEARCH database. Methods Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of 72 English general practices with embedded economic analysis and longitudinal descriptive and qualitative analysis. Informal comparison of the trial findings with a national descriptive study investigating secular trends undertaken using data from practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. The main outcomes of interest were prescribing errors and medication monitoring errors at six- and 12-months following the intervention. Results: Participants in the pharmacist intervention arm practices were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) if they had a history of peptic ulcer (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38, 0.89), to have been prescribed a beta-blocker if they had asthma (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.91) or (in those aged 75 years and older) to have been prescribed an ACE inhibitor or diuretic without a measurement of urea and electrolytes in the last 15 months (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.78). The economic analysis suggests that the PINCER pharmacist intervention has 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 (6 months) or £85 (12 months) per error avoided. The intervention addressed an issue that was important to professionals and their teams and was delivered in a way that was acceptable to practices with minimum disruption of normal work processes. Comparison of the trial findings with changes seen in QRESEARCH practices indicated that any reductions achieved in the simple feedback arm were likely, in the main, to have been related to secular trends rather than the intervention. Conclusions Compared with simple feedback, the pharmacist-led intervention resulted in reductions in proportions of patients at risk of prescribing and monitoring errors for the primary outcome measures and the composite secondary outcome measures at six-months and (with the exception of the NSAID/peptic ulcer outcome measure) 12-months post-intervention. The intervention is acceptable to pharmacists and practices, and is likely to be seen as costeffective by decision makers.

Work Domain Analysis for understanding medication safety in care homes in England: an exploratory study

Medication safety and errors are a major concern in care homes. In addition to the identification of incidents, there is a need for a comprehensive system description to avoid the danger of introducing interventions that have unintended consequences and are therefore unsustainable. The aim of the study was to explore the impact and uniqueness of Work Domain Analysis (WDA) to facilitate an in-depth understanding of medication safety problems within the care home system and identify the potential benefits of WDA to design safety interventions to improve medication safety. A comprehensive, systematic and contextual overview of the care home medication system was developed for the first time. The novel use of the Abstraction Hierarchy (AH) to analyse medication errors revealed the value of the AH to guide a comprehensive analysis of errors and generate system improvement recommendations that took into account the contextual information of the wider system.

Medication reconciliation and adherence: a call for clinical pharmacist

Introduction and Objectives: With the population ageing, there is a growing number of people who have several comorbidities and make use of a variety of drugs. These factors lead to a greater predisposition to adverse drug events, as well as to medication errors. The clinical pharmacist is the most indicated health professional to target these issues. The aims of this study were to analyze the profile of medication reconciliation and assess the role of the clinical pharmacist regarding medication adherence. Material and Methods: Prospective observational cohort study conducted from Jan-Mar 2013 at the Surgical Clinic of the University Hospital of the University of Sao Paulo. 117 admitted patients - over the age of 18 years, under continuous medication use and with length of hospitalization up to 120h - were included. Discrepancies were classified as intentional/unintentional and according to their risk to cause harm, and interventions were divided into accepted/not accepted. Medication adherence was measured by Morisky questionnaire. Results and Conclusions: Only 30% of hospital prescriptions showed no discrepancies between the medications that the patient was using at home and those which were being prescribed at the hospital and more than one third of those had the potential to cause moderate discomfort or clinical deterioration. One third of total discrepancies were classified as unintentional. About 90% of the interventions were accepted by the medical staff. In addition, about 63% of patients had poor adherence to drug therapy. The study revealed the importance of the medication reconciliation at patient admission, ensuring greater safety and therapeutic efficacy of the treatment during hospitalization, and orienting the patient at discharge, assuring the therapy safety.

Systematic review of medication safety assessment methods

Purpose The accuracy, efficiency, and efficacy of four commonly recommended medication safety assessment methodologies were systematically reviewed. Methods Medical literature databases were systematically searched for any comparative study conducted between January 2000 and October 2009 in which at least two of the four methodologies—incident report review, direct observation, chart review, and trigger tool—were compared with one another. Any study that compared two or more methodologies for quantitative accuracy (adequacy of the assessment of medication errors and adverse drug events) efficiency (effort and cost), and efficacy and that provided numerical data was included in the analysis. Results Twenty-eight studies were included in this review. Of these, 22 compared two of the methodologies, and 6 compared three methods. Direct observation identified the greatest number of reports of drug-related problems (DRPs), while incident report review identified the fewest. However, incident report review generally showed a higher specificity compared to the other methods and most effectively captured severe DRPs. In contrast, the sensitivity of incident report review was lower when compared with trigger tool. While trigger tool was the least labor-intensive of the four methodologies, incident report review appeared to be the least expensive, but only when linked with concomitant automated reporting systems and targeted follow-up. Conclusion All four medication safety assessment techniques—incident report review, chart review, direct observation, and trigger tool—have different strengths and weaknesses. Overlap between different methods in identifying DRPs is minimal. While trigger tool appeared to be the most effective and labor-efficient method, incident report review best identified high-severity DRPs.

Assessment of markers of medication literacy in a US-Mexico border community

Each year an estimated 180,000 people in the United States (U.S.) die as a result of medication errors, now considered a major public health problem. If a patient cannot correctly act on information related to medication use or "Medication Literacy" there is an increased potential for error. Medication use issues are unique on the US-Mexico border because they include high rates of herbal products and medication products from Mexico as well as issues related to the preferred language (English or Spanish) of the patient. To evaluate the medication literacy in a US-Mexico border community, this retrospective study evaluates 180 subjects representing four diverse economic segments of a metropolitan US-Mexico Border community who have taken a Medication Literacy Assessment. The assessment tool has been created to understand how patients interpret medication information for prescription, over-the-counter, herbal, and Mexican medication product use, and how they problem-solve medication questions. The Medication Literacy Assessment tool specifically assesses document literacy (e.g., prescription labels), prose literacy (e.g., patient leaflets), numeracy (e.g., calculations and measurements) as well as qualitative data related to medication use practices. The main hypothesis of this study is that the ability to interpret and use medications will vary based on education, language (Spanish or English), and recruitment sites (economically diverse communities). The results will provide information to better characterize medication use in a primarily Hispanic population on the US-Mexico border and may be used to influence policy decisions regarding prescription and over-the-counter product information.^

Nurse likelihood to report a pediatric medication error: Examination of the "pre-reporting" period

Each year, hospitalized patients experience 1.5 million preventable injuries from medication errors and hospitals incur an additional $3.5 billion in cost (Aspden, Wolcott, Bootman, & Cronenwatt; (2007). It is believed that error reporting is one way to learn about factors contributing to medication errors. And yet, an estimated 50% of medication errors go unreported. This period of medication error pre-reporting, with few exceptions, is underexplored. The literature focuses on error prevention and management, but lacks a description of the period of introspection and inner struggle over whether to report an error and resulting likelihood to report. Reporting makes a nurse vulnerable to reprimand, legal liability, and even threat to licensure. For some nurses this state may invoke a disparity between a person‘s belief about him or herself as a healer and the undeniable fact of the error.^ This study explored the medication error reporting experience. Its purpose was to inform nurses, educators, organizational leaders, and policy-makers about the medication error pre-reporting period, and to contribute to a framework for further investigation. From a better understanding of factors that contribute to or detract from the likelihood of an individual to report an error, interventions can be identified to help the nurse come to a psychologically healthy resolution and help increase reporting of error in order to learn from error and reduce the possibility of future similar error.^ The research question was: "What factors contribute to a nurse's likelihood to report an error?" The specific aims of the study were to: (1) describe participant nurses' perceptions of medication error reporting; (2) describe participant explanations of the emotional, cognitive, and physical reactions to making a medication error; (3) identify pre-reporting conditions that make it less likely for a nurse to report a medication error; and (4) identify pre-reporting conditions that make it more likely for a nurse to report a medication error.^ A qualitative research study was conducted to explore the medication error experience and in particular the pre-reporting period from the perspective of the nurse. A total of 54 registered nurses from a large private free-standing not-for-profit children's hospital in the southwestern United States participated in group interviews. The results describe the experience of the nurse as well as the physical, emotional, and cognitive responses to the realization of the commission of a medication error. The results also reveal factors that make it more and less likely to report a medication error.^ It is clear from this study that upon realization that he or she has made a medication error, a nurse's foremost concern is for the safety of the patient. Fear was also described by each group of nurses. The nurses described a fear of several things including physician reaction, manager reaction, peer reaction, as well as family reaction and possible lack of trust as a result. Another universal response was the description of a struggle with guilt, shame, imperfection, blaming oneself, and questioning one's competence.^

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.

Help with your medication /

Description based on: 1995 ; title from cover.

Factors predictive of intravenous fluid administration errors in Australian surgical care wards

Background: Intravenous (IV) fluid administration is an integral component of clinical care. Errors in administration can cause detrimental patient outcomes and increase healthcare costs, although little is known about medication administration errors associated with continuous IV infusions. Objectives: ( 1) To ascertain the prevalence of medication administration errors for continuous IV infusions and identify the variables that caused them. ( 2) To quantify the probability of errors by fitting a logistic regression model to the data. Methods: A prospective study was conducted on three surgical wards at a teaching hospital in Australia. All study participants received continuous infusions of IV fluids. Parenteral nutrition and non-electrolyte containing intermittent drug infusions ( such as antibiotics) were excluded. Medication administration errors and contributing variables were documented using a direct observational approach. Results: Six hundred and eighty seven observations were made, with 124 (18.0%) having at least one medication administration error. The most common error observed was wrong administration rate. The median deviation from the prescribed rate was 247 ml/h (interquartile range 275 to + 33.8 ml/ h). Errors were more likely to occur if an IV infusion control device was not used and as the duration of the infusion increased. Conclusions: Administration errors involving continuous IV infusions occur frequently. They could be reduced by more common use of IV infusion control devices and regular checking of administration rates.