40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities.

          Medication errors are a national concern. To identify the prevalence of medication errors (doses administered differently than ordered). A prospective cohort study. Hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, nonaccredited hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities in Georgia and Colorado. A stratified random sample of 36 institutions. Twenty-six declined, with random replacement. Medication doses given (or omitted) during at least 1 medication pass during a 1- to 4-day period by nurses on high medication-volume nursing units. The target sample was 50 day-shift doses per nursing unit or until all doses for that medication pass were administered. Medication errors were witnessed by observation, and verified by a research pharmacist (E.A.F.). Clinical significance was judged by an expert panel of physicians. Medication errors reaching patients. In the 36 institutions, 19% of the doses (605/3216) were in error. The most frequent errors by category were wrong time (43%), omission (30%), wrong dose (17%), and unauthorized drug (4%). Seven percent of the errors were judged potential adverse drug events. There was no significant difference between error rates in the 3 settings (P =.82) or by size (P =.39). Error rates were higher in Colorado than in Georgia (P =.04) Medication errors were common (nearly 1 of every 5 doses in the typical hospital and skilled nursing facility). The percentage of errors rated potentially harmful was 7%, or more than 40 per day in a typical 300-patient facility. The problem of defective medication administration systems, although varied, is widespread.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly people living in care homes--randomised controlled trial.

            to measure the impact of pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review with elderly care home residents. randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against usual care. sixty-five care homes for the elderly in Leeds, UK. a total of 661 residents aged 65+ years on one or more medicines. clinical medication review by a pharmacist with patient and clinical records. Recommendations to general practitioner for approval and implementation. Control patients received usual general practitioner care. primary: number of changes in medication per participant. Secondary: number and cost of repeat medicines per participant; medication review rate; mortality, falls, hospital admissions, general practitioner consultations, Barthel index, Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). the pharmacist reviewed 315/331 (95.2%) patients in 6 months. A total of 62/330 (18.8%) control patients were reviewed by their general practitioner. The mean number of drug changes per patient were 3.1 for intervention and 2.4 for control group (P < 0.0001). There were respectively 0.8 and 1.3 falls per patient (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference for GP consultations per patient (means 2.9 and 2.8 in 6 months, P = 0.5), hospitalisations (means 0.2 and 0.3, P = 0.11), deaths (51/331 and 48/330, P = 0.81), Barthel score (9.8 and 9.3, P = 0.06), SMMSE score (13.9 and 13.8, P = 0.62), number and cost of drugs per patient (6.7 and 6.9, P = 0.5) (pounds sterling 42.24 and pounds sterling 42.94 per 28 days). A total of 75.6% (565/747) of pharmacist recommendations were accepted by the general practitioner; and 76.6% (433/565) of accepted recommendations were implemented. general practitioners do not review most care home patients' medication. A clinical pharmacist can review them and make recommendations that are usually accepted. This leads to substantial change in patients' medication regimens without change in drug costs. There is a reduction in the number of falls. There is no significant change in consultations, hospitalisation, mortality, SMMSE or Barthel scores.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The incidence of adverse drug events in two large academic long-term care facilities.

              To assess the incidence of and risk factors for adverse drug events in the long-term care setting. We performed a cohort study of all long-stay residents of two academic long-term care facilities over a period of up to 9 months during 2000 to 2001. We assessed the number of adverse drug events, the severity of events (classified as less serious, serious, life threatening, or fatal), and whether the events were preventable. A case-control study was nested within the prospective study to identify resident-level risk factors for the occurrence of adverse drug events. There were 815 adverse drug events, of which 42% were judged preventable. The overall rate of adverse drug events was 9.8 per 100 resident-months, with a rate of 4.1 preventable adverse drug events per 100 resident-months. Errors associated with preventable events occurred most often at the stages of ordering and monitoring. Residents taking medications in several drug categories were at increased risk of a preventable adverse event. In multivariate analyses, the adjusted odds ratio was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0 to 5.9) for those taking antipsychotic agents, 2.8 (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7) for those taking anticoagulants, 2.2 (95% CI: 1.2 to 4.0) for those taking diuretics, and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.1 to 3.7) for those taking antiepileptics. Our findings reinforce the need for a special focus on the ordering and monitoring stages of pharmaceutical care for preventing adverse drug events in the long-term care setting. Patients taking antipsychotic agents, anticoagulants, diuretics, and antiepileptics are at increased risk.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Qual Saf Health Care
                qshc
                qhc
                Quality & Safety in Health Care
                BMJ Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                1475-3898
                1475-3901
                2009
                October 2009
                25 September 2009
                25 September 2009
                : 18
                : 5
                : 341-346
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, London, UK
                [2 ]School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [3 ]Robens Centre for Public Health, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK
                [4 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [5 ]Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Professor N D Barber, Department of Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, Tavistock House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK; n.barber@ 123456pharmacy.ac.uk
                Article
                qc34231
                10.1136/qshc.2009.034231
                2762085
                19812095
                a6d7e2de-0286-4d57-bb16-f4ac73a82163
                © Barber et al 2009

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 July 2009
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article