Oops! Another medication error : a literature review of contributing factors and methods to prevent medication errors

The purpose of this bachelor's thesis was to chart scientific research articles to present contributing factors to medication errors done by nurses in a hospital setting, and introduce methods to prevent medication errors. Additionally, international and Finnish research was combined and findings were reflected in relation to the Finnish health care system. Literature review was conducted out of 23 scientific articles. Data was searched systematically from CINAHL, MEDIC and MEDLINE databases, and also manually. Literature was analysed and the findings combined using inductive content analysis. Findings revealed that both organisational and individual factors contributed to medication errors. High workload, communication breakdowns, unsuitable working environment, distractions and interruptions, and similar medication products were identified as organisational factors. Individual factors included nurses' inability to follow protocol, inadequate knowledge of medications and personal qualities of the nurse. Developing and improving the physical environment, error reporting, and medication management protocols were emphasised as methods to prevent medication errors. Investing to the staff's competence and well-being was also identified as a prevention method. The number of Finnish articles was small, and therefore the applicability of the findings to Finland is difficult to assess. However, the findings seem to fit to the Finnish health care system relatively well. Further research is needed to identify those factors that contribute to medication errors in Finland. This is a necessity for the development of methods to prevent medication errors that fit in to the Finnish health care system.

Description of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors

Objective: To describe the use of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related admissions to hospital. This is a potentially sensitive subject with medicolegal implications. Setting: Four primary care trusts and one teaching hospital in the UK. Method: Letters were mailed to community pharmacists and general practitioners asking for provisional consent to be interviewed and permission to contact them again should a patient be admitted to hospital as a result of a medication error. In addition, GPs were asked for permission to approach their patients should they be admitted to hospital. A multifaceted approach to recruitment was used including gaining support for the study from professional defence agencies and local champions. Key findings: Eighty-five percent (310/385) of GPs and 62% (93/149) of community pharmacists responded to the letters. Eighty-five percent (266/310) of GPs who responded and 81% (75/93) of community pharmacists who responded gave provisional consent to participate in interviews. All GPs (14 out of 14) and community pharmacists (10 out of 10) who were subsequently asked to participate, when patients were admitted to hospital, agreed to be interviewed. Conclusion: The multifaceted approach to recruitment was associated with an impressive response when asking healthcare professionals to be interviewed about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related morbidity.

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.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists’ interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Objective To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices. Methods PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients’ demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded and double entered into SPSS v15, and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% CI) and, as appropriate, means (SD) or medians (IQR) for continuous data. Key findings Pharmacists spent a median of 20 minutes (IQR 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95%CI 70, 74) (1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95%CI 73, 76) (1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95%CI 59, 63) (1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95%CI 64, 68) (1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95%CI 4, 6) (104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists’ placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs. Conclusions The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

Care homes’ use of medicines study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people

Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned.

Frequency of and predictors for patient-reported medical and medication errors in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the frequency of and identify risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in Switzerland. The joint effect of risk factors on error-reporting probability was modelled for hypothetical patients. METHODS: A representative population sample of Swiss citizens (n = 1306) was surveyed as part of the Commonwealth Fund’s 2010 lnternational Survey of the General Public’s Views of their Health Care System’s Performance in Eleven Countries. Data on personal background, utilisation of health care, coordination of care problems and reported errors were assessed. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for patients’ reports of medical mistakes and medication errors. RESULTS: 11.4% of participants reported at least one error in their care in the previous two years (8% medical errors, 5.3% medication errors). Poor coordination of care experiences was frequent. 7.8% experienced that test results or medical records were not available, 17.2% received conflicting information from care providers and 11.5% reported that tests were ordered although they had been done before. Age (OR = 0.98, p = 0.014), poor health (OR = 2.95, p = 0.007), utilisation of emergency care (OR = 2.45, p = 0.003), inpatient-stay (OR = 2.31, p = 0.010) and poor care coordination (OR = 5.43, p <0.001) are important predictors for reporting error. For high utilisers of care that unify multiple risk factors the probability that errors are reported rises up to p = 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety remains a major challenge for the Swiss health care system. Despite the health related and economic burden associated with it, the widespread experience of medical error in some subpopulations also has the potential to erode trust in the health care system as a whole.

Medication errors in a swiss cardiovascular surgery department: a cross-sectional study based on a novel medication error report method

The purpose of this study was (1) to determine frequency and type of medication errors (MEs), (2) to assess the number of MEs prevented by registered nurses, (3) to assess the consequences of ME for patients, and (4) to compare the number of MEs reported by a newly developed medication error self-reporting tool to the number reported by the traditional incident reporting system. We conducted a cross-sectional study on ME in the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of Bern University Hospital in Switzerland. Eligible registered nurses (n = 119) involving in the medication process were included. Data on ME were collected using an investigator-developed medication error self reporting tool (MESRT) that asked about the occurrence and characteristics of ME. Registered nurses were instructed to complete a MESRT at the end of each shift even if there was no ME. All MESRTs were completed anonymously. During the one-month study period, a total of 987 MESRTs were returned. Of the 987 completed MESRTs, 288 (29%) indicated that there had been an ME. Registered nurses reported preventing 49 (5%) MEs. Overall, eight (2.8%) MEs had patient consequences. The high response rate suggests that this new method may be a very effective approach to detect, report, and describe ME in hospitals.

LEARNING FROM NEAR MISSES IN MEDICATION ERRORS: A BAYESIAN APPROACH

Medical errors originating in health care facilities are a significant source of preventable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Voluntary error report systems that collect information on the causes and contributing factors of medi- cal errors regardless of the resulting harm may be useful for developing effective harm prevention strategies. Some patient safety experts question the utility of data from errors that did not lead to harm to the patient, also called near misses. A near miss (a.k.a. close call) is an unplanned event that did not result in injury to the patient. Only a fortunate break in the chain of events prevented injury. We use data from a large voluntary reporting system of 836,174 medication errors from 1999 to 2005 to provide evidence that the causes and contributing factors of errors that result in harm are similar to the causes and contributing factors of near misses. We develop Bayesian hierarchical models for estimating the log odds of selecting a given cause (or contributing factor) of error given harm has occurred and the log odds of selecting the same cause given that harm did not occur. The posterior distribution of the correlation between these two vectors of log-odds is used as a measure of the evidence supporting the use of data from near misses and their causes and contributing factors to prevent medical errors. In addition, we identify the causes and contributing factors that have the highest or lowest log-odds ratio of harm versus no harm. These causes and contributing factors should also be a focus in the design of prevention strategies. This paper provides important evidence on the utility of data from near misses, which constitute the vast majority of errors in our data.

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.^

Medication errors in older people with mental health problems:a review

Objective - To review and summarise published data on medication errors in older people with mental health problems. Methods - A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that investigated medication errors in older people with mental health problems. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PHARMLINE, COCHRANE COLLABORATION and PsycINFO were searched electronically. Any studies identified were scrutinized for further references. The title, abstract or full text was systematically reviewed for relevance. Results - Data were extracted from eight studies. In total, information about 728 errors (459 administration, 248 prescribing, 7 dispensing, 12 transcribing, 2 unclassified) was available. The dataset related almost exclusively to inpatients, frequently involved non-psychotropics, and the majority of the errors were not serious. Conclusions - Due to methodology issues it was impossible to calculate overall error rates. Future research should concentrate on serious errors within community settings, and clarify potential risk factors.

Medication errors in mental healthcare:a systematic review

Methods: It has been estimated that medication error harms 1-2% of patients admitted to general hospitals. There has been no previous systematic review of the incidence, cause or type of medication error in mental healthcare services. Methods: A systematic literature search for studies that examined the incidence or cause of medication error in one or more stage(s) of the medication-management process in the setting of a community or hospital-based mental healthcare service was undertaken. The results in the context of the design of the study and the denominator used were examined. Results: All studies examined medication management processes, as opposed to outcomes. The reported rate of error was highest in studies that retrospectively examined drug charts, intermediate in those that relied on reporting by pharmacists to identify error and lowest in those that relied on organisational incident reporting systems. Only a few of the errors identified by the studies caused actual harm, mostly because they were detected and remedial action was taken before the patient received the drug. The focus of the research was on inpatients and prescriptions dispensed by mental health pharmacists. Conclusion: Research about medication error in mental healthcare is limited. In particular, very little is known about the incidence of error in non-hospital settings or about the harm caused by it. Evidence is available from other sources that a substantial number of adverse drug events are caused by psychotropic drugs. Some of these are preventable and might probably, therefore, be due to medication error. On the basis of this and features of the organisation of mental healthcare that might predispose to medication error, priorities for future research are suggested.

CP-036 evaluation of outpatient clinic letters for medication errors

Background - It is well recognised that errors are more likely to occur during transitions of care, especially medicines errors. Clinic letters are used as a communication tool during a transition from hospital (outpatient clinics) to primary care (general practitioners). Little is known about medicines errors in clinic letters, as previous studies in this area have focused on medicines errors in inpatient or outpatient prescriptions. Published studies concerning clinic letters largely focus on perceptions of patients or general practitioners in respect to overall quality. Purpose - To investigate medicines errors contained in outpatient clinic letters generated by prescribers within the Neurology Department of a specialist paediatric hospital in the UK.Materials and methods - Single site, retrospective, cross-sectional review of 100 clinic letters generated during March–July 2013 in response to an outpatient consultation. Clinic letters were conveniently selected from the most recent visit of each patient. An evaluation tool with a 10-point scale, where 10 was no error and 0 was significant error, was developed and refined throughout the study to facilitate identification and characterisation of medicines errors. The tool was tested for a relationship between scores and number of medicines errors using a regression analysis.Results - Of 315 items related to neurology mentioned within the letters, 212 items were associated with 602 errors. Common missing information was allergy (97%, n = 97), formulation (60.3%, n = 190), strength/concentration (59%, n = 186) and weight (53%, n = 53). Ninety-nine letters were associated with at least one error. Scores were in range of 4–10 with 42% of letters scored as 7. Statistically significant relationships were observed between scores and number of medicines errors (R2 = 0.4168, p < 0.05) as well as between number of medicines and number of drug-related errors (R2 = 0.9719, p < 0.05). Conclusions - Nearly all clinic letters were associated with medicines errors. The 10-point evaluation tool may be a useful device to categorise clinic letter errors.

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. ^

Errors in preparation and medication management in nursing professionals

The preparation and administration of medications is one of the most common and relevant functions of nurses, demanding great responsibility. Incorrect administration of medication, currently constitutes a serious problem in health services, and is considered one of the main adverse effects suffered by hospitalized patients. Objectives: Identify the major errors in the preparation and administration of medication by nurses in hospitals and know what factors lead to the error occurred in the preparation and administration of medication. Methods: A systematic review of the literature. Deined as inclusion criteria: original scientiic papers, complete, published in the period 2011 to May 2016, the SciELO and LILACS databases, performed in a hospital environment, addressing errors in preparation and administration of medication by nurses and in Portuguese language. After application of the inclusion criteria obtained a sample of 7 articles. Results: The main errors identiied in the pr eparation and administration of medication were wrong dose 71.4%, wrong time 71.4%, 57.2% dilution inadequate, incorrect selection of the patient 42.8% and 42.8% via inadequate. The factors that were most commonly reported by the nursing staff, as the cause of the error was the lack of human appeal 57.2%, inappropriate locations for the preparation of medication 57.2%, the presence of noise and low brightness in preparation location 57, 2%, professionals untrained 42.8%, fatigue and stress 42.8% and inattention 42.8%. Conclusions: The literature shows a high error rate in the preparation and administration of medication for various reasons, making it important that preventive measures of this occurrence are implemented.

Antimicrobial drug administration errors identified in Brazilian multicentric study

Medication administration errors (MAE) are the most frequent kind of medication errors. Errors with antimicrobial drugs (AD) are relevant because they may interfere inpatient safety and in the development of microbial resistance. The aim of this study is to analyze the AD errors detected in a Brazilian multicentric study of MAE. It was a devcriptive and explorotory study carried out in clinical units in five Brazilian teaching hospitals. The hospitals were investigated during 30 days. MAE were detected by observation technique. MAE were classified in categories: wrong route(WR), wrong patient(WP), wrong dose(WD) wrong time (WT) and unordered drug (UD). AD with MA E were classified by Anatomical-Therapeutical-Chemical Classification System. AD with narrow therapeutic index (NTI) wet-e identified A descriptive statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 11.5 software. A total of 1500 errors were observed, 277 (18.5%) of them were error with AD. The hopes of AD error were: WT87.7%, QD 6.9%, WR 1.5%, UD 3.2% and WP 0.7%. The number of AD found was 36. The mostly ATC class were fluoroquinolones 13.9%, combinations of penicillin 13.9%, macrolides 8.3% and third-generation cephalosporines 5.6%. The parenteral drug dosage form was associated with 55.6% of AD. 16.7% of AD were NTI. 47.4% of WD and 21.8% WT were with NTI drugs. This study shows that these errors should be considered potential areas for improvement in the medication process and patient safety plus there is requirement to develop rational drug use of AD.