Predictors of incorrectness in antimicrobial prescription in the Bauru State Hospital (Bauru city, São Paulo State, Brazil)

The inappropriate use of antimicrobials in hospitals presents a negative impact on patient outcome and is associated with the emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been instituted in order to improve the quality of prescriptions in hospitals. In this setting, the identification of patterns of inappropriate antimicrobial prescription is a valuable tool that allows ASPs to identify priorities for directing educative/restrictive policies. With this purpose, a study was conducted in the Bauru State Hospital, a teaching hospital with 285 beds affiliated to the Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University. The hospital maintains an active ASP since it was opened, in 2002. We selected 25% of the requests for parenteral antimicrobials (RPAs) from 2005 for analysis. Prescriptions for prophylactic purposes were excluded. All other RPAs were classified according to a modified Kunin and Jones categories. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of general inappropriateness and of specific prescription errors. Prescriptions classified as "appropriate'' or "probably appropriate" were selected as controls in all stages of the study. Among 963 RPAs included in our study, 34.6% were inappropriate. General predictors of inappropriateness were: prescription on weekends/holidays (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.20-2.28, p = 0.002), patient from intensive care unit (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.11-2.23, p = 0.01), peritoneal (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.27-3.65, p = 0.004) or urinary tract infection (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.25-2.87, p = 0.002), combined therapy with two or more antimicrobials (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.15-2.57, p = 0.008) and prescriptions including penicillin (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.39-3.25, p = 0.001) or first-generation cephalosporins (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.01-3.00, p = 0.048). Previous consultation with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist had a protective effect against inappropriate prescription (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.24-0.50, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with specific prescription errors varied. However, consultation with an ID specialist was protective against both unnecessary antimicrobial use (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01-0.26, p = 0.001) and requests for agents with insufficient spectrum (OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.03-0.30, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the analysis of factors predictive of inappropriateness in antimicrobial prescription allowed us to identify issues requiring intervention. Also, it provided a positive feedback of the ASP efficacy, demonstrating the importance of previous consultation with an ID specialist to assure the quality of antimicrobial prescriptions.

Erros de medicação num serviço de internamento hospitalar : estudo de prevalência

RESUMO - Os erros de medicação (EM) são uma das principais causas de eventos adversos, estimando-se serem as causas não relacionados com procedimentos cirúrgicos mais frequentes. Estes podem ser classificados por erros latentes ou erros ativos. Objetivos Definiram-se como principais objetivos deste estudo, determinar a prevalência de EM ativos num internamento hospitalar evitados e não evitados, nos momentos da prescrição escrita, transcrição, distribuição e administração, bem como a sua relação com algumas variáveis, como o Grupo farmacológico, Via de administração, Especialidade médica do prescritor e Área médica do médico responsável pelo episódio de internamento (MREI). Metodologia O estudo foi do tipo observacional descritivo de abordagem quantitativa, transversal com recrutamento prospetivo. Foi utilizado um instrumento de observação (check-list) para o registo de todos os EM e das variáveis em cada fase. Resultados Foram observadas 513 unidades amostrais com uma prevalência de 98,2% de EM, num total de 1655 erros dos quais 75% foram evitados. Nas variáveis Grupo farmacológico e Área médica do MREI não foram encontradas relações estatísticas relevantes. Obteve-se um OR=1,97 [1,18;3,27] para medicamentos orais quando comparados aos endovenosos nos erros de prescrição (EP) e um OR=7 [2,77;17,71] quando comparados com os endovenosos na transcrição dos Serviços Farmacêuticos (TSF). A anestesiologia apresentou um OR=0,41 [0,27;0,63] nos EP comparativamente às outras especialidades. Do total de EM observaram-se 30% de erros de prescrição (EP), 20% de erros na transcrição do internamento, 36% de erros na TSF, 2% de erros na distribuição e 12% de erros na administração. Os erros mais prevalentes foram a identificação do prescritor ilegível (16%) e a identificação do doente omissa na TSF (16%). Conclusão Apesar da elevada prevalência de EM observados, a maioria dos erros foram corrigidos e não chegaram ao doente. Tendo em conta os EM observados, a utilização de meios informáticos e o aumento da adesão dos enfermeiros ao procedimento de identificação dos doentes poderão permitir a redução do número de EM em cerca de 80%, reduzindo também a probabilidade de ocorrência de eventos adversos relacionados com os erros ativos na utilização de medicamentos.

Investigação farmacoepidemiológica do uso do clonazepam no distrito sanitário leste em Natal-RN

Prescription errors are the most serious type of medication errors found in the health system. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of clonazepam prescriptions. A descriptive and observational study with retrospective data collection was conducted at 30 community pharmacies in Natal/RN, Brazil, after informed consent was obtained from the pharmacists. A sample of 313 prescription notifications was randomly collected in October 2009. They were analyzed for legible handwriting and completeness. During the study, one researcher, two pharmacists, and one pharmacy undergraduate student evaluated patient and purchaser identification, pharmaceutical form, dosing regimen, administration route, and prescription by generic name. This research was approved by the institutional Ethics Committee. Among the 313 collected notifications, only 44.1% were legible. A total of 55.91% (175/313) had at least one illegible item, 100% contained incomplete information, and 97.12% (304/313) contained one or more abbreviations. The proportion of illegible handwriting related to the patient s identification (p=0.0001) was statistically significantly greater than that related to the drug purchaser s identification (p=0.0004). Contrary to legal requirements, prescriptions with the generic name accounted for 13.42% (42/313) of the total. All the examined notifications were handwritten. Prescription errors, which potentially can have serious consequences, have been evaluated worldwide, although little is known about this subject as it relates to community pharmacies. This study showed high percentages of prescribing problems, which justifies the development of future research about medication errors in community pharmacies and education activities for prescribers

Factors predictive of inappropriateness in requests for parenteral antimicrobials for therapeutic purposes: A study in a small teaching hospital in Brazil

Background: The identification of patterns of inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions in hospitals contributes to the improvement of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to identify predictors of inappropriateness in requests for parenteral antimicrobials (RPAs) in a teaching hospital with 285 beds. We reviewed 25% of RPAs for therapeutic purposes from y 2005. Appropriateness was evaluated according to current guidelines for antimicrobial therapy. We assessed predictors of inappropriateness through univariate and multivariate models. RPAs classified as 'appropriate' or 'probably appropriate' were selected as controls. Case groups comprised inappropriate RPAs, either in general or for specific errors. Results: Nine hundred and sixty-three RPAs were evaluated, 34.6% of which were considered inappropriate. In the multivariate analysis, general predictors of inappropriateness were: prescription on week-ends/holidays (odds ratio (OR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.28, p = 0.002), patient in the intensive care unit (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.23, p = 0.01), peritoneal infection (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.27-3.65, p = 0.004), urinary tract infection (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 -2.87, p = 0.01), combination therapy with 2 or more antimicrobials (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15-2.57, p = 0.008) and prescriptions including penicillins (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.39-3.25, p = 0.001) or 1(st) generation cephalosporins (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.01-3.00, p = 0.048). Previous consultation with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist had a protective effect against inappropriate prescription (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.50, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with specific prescription errors varied. However, consultation with an ID specialist was protective against both unnecessary antimicrobial use (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.26, p = 0.001) and requests for agents with an insufficient antimicrobial spectrum (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.30, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the importance of previous consultation with an ID specialist in assuring the quality of prescriptions. Also, they highlight prescription patterns that should be approached by ASP policies.

Preditores de incorreçao na prescrição de antimicrobianos no Hospital Estadual Bauru (Bauru, São Paulo)

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Neue Untersuchungen zum Verordnungsmonitoring sowie zur Kompatibilität und Stabilität applikationsfertiger Zytostatika-Zubereitungen

Applikationsfertige Zytostatikazubereitungen werden heute unter der Verantwortung eines Apothekers in zentralisierten Herstellungsbereichen hergestellt. Weil die Verordnung der Chemotherapie ein großes Fehlerrisiko birgt, ist konsequentes Verordnungsmonitoring ein wesentlicher Teilprozess der zentralen Zytostatikazubereitung. rnDie aktuelle Umsetzung und die Ergebnisse des Verordnungsmonitorings in den Universitätskliniken Deutschlands wurden im Rahmen dieser Arbeit in einer prospektiven Erhebung erfasst. Als häufigste Verordnungsirrtümer wurden Dosisberechnungsfehler (48%), welche als von hoher Relevanz (78%) für die Patientensicherheit angesehen wurden, genannt. Die Inzidenz der Verordnungsfehler betrug durchschnittlich 0,77% bei rund 1950 Verordnungen pro Tag. Das konsequente Verordnungsmonitoring von pharmazeutischer Seite erfolgt höchst effizient und leistet einen hohen Beitrag zur Patienten- und Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit in der Onkologie.rnFür die Herstellung der applikationsfertiger Zytostatika-Zubereitungen sind fundierte Kenntnisse zu deren physikalisch-chemischen Stabilität erforderlich. Zu neu zugelassenen Zytostatika und insbesondere Biologicals, stehen häufig noch keine Daten zur Stabilität der applikationsfertigen Lösungen zur Verfügung. Die Bestimmung der physikalisch-chemischen Stabilität war daher Gegenstand dieser Arbeit. Die applikationsfertigen Infusionslösungen der Purin-Analoga Nelarabin und Clofarabin (RP-HPLC), sowie des monoklonalen Antiköpers Trastuzumab (SEC, UV-Spektroskopie, SDS-Page), erwiesen sich über einen Zeitraum von mindestens 28 Tagen als stabil. Die Stabilität zweier Camptothecin-Derivate (Topotecan und Irinotecan) beladen auf DC Beads™, wie auch die Ladungskapazität und Kompatibilität mit Kontrastmitteln, wurde ebenfalls bewiesen. rn

Physicians' perceptions, attitudes and expectations regarding the role of hospital-based pharmacists in the West Bank, Palestine

Objective - To evaluate the perceptions, expectations and experiences of physicians with regard to hospital-based pharmacists in the West Bank, Palestine. Methods - A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 250 physicians practising in four general hospitals in the West Bank, Palestine. The main sections of the questionnaire comprised a series of statements pertaining to physicians' perceptions, expectations and experiences with pharmacists. Key findings - One hundred and fifty seven questionnaires were completed and returned (response rate, 62.8%). The majority of respondents were most comfortable with pharmacists detecting and preventing prescription errors (76.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 69.5–81.2%) and patient education (57.9%; CI 51.2–63.4%) but they were not comfortable with pharmacists suggesting the use of prescription medications to patients (56.7%; CI 49.8–62.4%). Most physicians (62.4%; CI 56.8–69.1%) expected the pharmacist to educate their patients about the safe and appropriate use of their medication. However, approximately one-third (31.7%; CI 26.0–39.6%) did not expect pharmacists to be available for consultation during rounds. Physicians' experiences with pharmacists were less favourable; whereas 77% (CI 70.2–81.5%) of the physicians agreed that pharmacists were always a reliable source of information, only 11.5% (CI 6.2–16.4%) agreed that pharmacists appeared to be willing to take responsibility for solving any drug-related problems. Conclusion -The present study showed that hospital physicians are more likely to accept traditional pharmacy services than newer clinical services for hospital-based pharmacists in the West Bank, Palestine. Pharmacists should therefore interact more positively and more frequently with physicians. This will close the gap between the physicians' commonly held perceptions of what they expect pharmacists to do and what pharmacists can actually do, and gain support for an extended role of hospital-based pharmacists in future patient therapy management.

Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals:mixed method evaluation

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for "difference in difference" 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from17%(63) to13%(49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice: the PRACtICe Study

Aim: To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors in general practice; to explore the causes, and to identify defences against error. Methods: 1) Systematic reviews; 2) Retrospective review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% sample of patients from 15 general practices in England; 3) Interviews with 34 prescribers regarding 70 potential errors; 15 root cause analyses, and six focus groups involving 46 primary health care team members Results: The study involved examination of 6,048 unique prescription items for 1,777 patients. Prescribing or monitoring errors were detected for one in eight patients, involving around one in 20 of all prescription items. The vast majority of the errors were of mild to moderate severity, with one in 550 items being associated with a severe error. The following factors were associated with increased risk of prescribing or monitoring errors: male gender, age less than 15 years or greater than 64 years, number of unique medication items prescribed, and being prescribed preparations in the following therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, infections, malignant disease and immunosuppression, musculoskeletal, eye, ENT and skin. Prescribing or monitoring errors were not associated with the grade of GP or whether prescriptions were issued as acute or repeat items. A wide range of underlying causes of error were identified relating to the prescriber, patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system and the primary/secondary care interface. Many defences against error were also identified, including strategies employed by individual prescribers and primary care teams, and making best use of health information technology. Conclusion: Prescribing errors in general practices are common, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Strategies for reducing the prevalence of error should focus on GP training, continuing professional development for GPs, clinical governance, effective use of clinical computer systems, and improving safety systems within general practices and at the interface with secondary care.

The prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practice – a retrospective case note review

Objective To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices in England. Design Retrospective case note review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% random sample of patients. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to analyse the data. Setting Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. Data sources Examination of 6048 unique prescription items prescribed over the previous 12 months for 1777 patients. Main outcome measures Prevalence of prescribing and monitoring errors, and severity of errors, using validated definitions. Results Prescribing and/or monitoring errors were detected in 4.9% (296/6048) of all prescription items (95% confidence interval 4.4 - 5.5%). The vast majority of errors were of mild to moderate severity, with 0.2% (11/6048) of items having a severe error. After adjusting for covariates, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of prescribing and/or monitoring errors were: age less than 15 (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.87, 1.19 to 2.94, p=0.006) or greater than 64 years (OR 1.68, 1.04 to 2.73, p=0.035), and higher numbers of unique medication items prescribed (OR 1.16, 1.12 to 1.19, p<0.001). Conclusion Prescribing and monitoring errors are common in English general practice, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Having identified the most common and important errors, and the factors associated with these, strategies to prevent future errors should be developed based on the study findings.

Inclusion of salt form on prescription medication labeling as a source of patient confusion: a pilot study

Background: It has been estimated that 10,000 patient injuries occur in the US annually due to confusion involving drug names. An unexplored source of patient misunderstandings may be medication salt forms. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess patient knowledge and comprehension regarding the salt forms of medications as a potential source of medication errors. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire which assessed patient knowledge of medication names on prescription labels was administered to a convenience sample of patients presenting to a family practice clinic. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: There were 308 responses. Overall, 41% of patients agreed they find their medication names confusing. Participants correctly answered to salt form questions between 12.1% and 56.9% of the time. Taking more prescription medications and higher education level were positively associated with providing more correct answers to 3 medication salt form knowledge questions, while age was negatively associated. Conclusions: Patient misconceptions about medication salt forms are common. These findings support recommendations to standardize the inclusion or exclusion of salt forms. Increasing patient education is another possible approach to reducing confusion.