54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Drug Administration Errors in Hospital Inpatients: A Systematic Review

      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

          Context

          Drug administration in the hospital setting is the last barrier before a possible error reaches the patient.

          Objectives

          We aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of administration error rate detected by the observation method.

          Data Sources

          Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library from 1966 to December 2011 and reference lists of included studies.

          Study Selection

          Observational studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, and randomized controlled trials that measured the rate of administration errors in inpatients were included.

          Data Extraction

          Two reviewers (senior pharmacists) independently identified studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data; the second reviewer checked the data. The main outcome was the error rate calculated as being the number of errors without wrong time errors divided by the Total Opportunity for Errors (TOE, sum of the total number of doses ordered plus the unordered doses given), and multiplied by 100. For studies that reported it, clinical impact was reclassified into four categories from fatal to minor or no impact. Due to a large heterogeneity, results were expressed as median values (interquartile range, IQR), according to their study design.

          Results

          Among 2088 studies, a total of 52 reported TOE. Most of the studies were cross-sectional studies (N=46). The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was 10.5% [IQR: 7.3%-21.7%]. No fatal error was observed and most errors were classified as minor in the 18 studies in which clinical impact was analyzed. We did not find any evidence of publication bias.

          Conclusions

          Administration errors are frequent among inpatients. The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was about 10%. A standardization of administration error rate using the same denominator (TOE), numerator and types of errors is essential for further publications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

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

          Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors.

          Interruptions have been implicated as a cause of clinical errors, yet, to our knowledge, no empirical studies of this relationship exist. We tested the hypothesis that interruptions during medication administration increase errors. We performed an observational study of nurses preparing and administering medications in 6 wards at 2 major teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Procedural failures and interruptions were recorded during direct observation. Clinical errors were identified by comparing observational data with patients' medication charts. A volunteer sample of 98 nurses (representing a participation rate of 82%) were observed preparing and administering 4271 medications to 720 patients over 505 hours from September 2006 through March 2008. Associations between procedural failures (10 indicators; eg, aseptic technique) and clinical errors (12 indicators; eg, wrong dose) and interruptions, and between interruptions and potential severity of failures and errors, were the main outcome measures. Each interruption was associated with a 12.1% increase in procedural failures and a 12.7% increase in clinical errors. The association between interruptions and clinical errors was independent of hospital and nurse characteristics. Interruptions occurred in 53.1% of administrations (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.6%-54.6%). Of total drug administrations, 74.4% (n = 3177) had at least 1 procedural failure (95% CI, 73.1%-75.7%). Administrations with no interruptions (n = 2005) had a procedural failure rate of 69.6% (n = 1395; 95% CI, 67.6%-71.6%), which increased to 84.6% (n = 148; 95% CI, 79.2%-89.9%) with 3 interruptions. Overall, 25.0% (n = 1067; 95% CI, 23.7%-26.3%) of administrations had at least 1 clinical error. Those with no interruptions had a rate of 25.3% (n = 507; 95% CI, 23.4%-27.2%), whereas those with 3 interruptions had a rate of 38.9% (n = 68; 95% CI, 31.6%-46.1%). Nurse experience provided no protection against making a clinical error and was associated with higher procedural failure rates. Error severity increased with interruption frequency. Without interruption, the estimated risk of a major error was 2.3%; with 4 interruptions this risk doubled to 4.7% (95% CI, 2.9%-7.4%; P < .001). Among nurses at 2 hospitals, the occurrence and frequency of interruptions were significantly associated with the incidence of procedural failures and clinical errors.
            Bookmark
            • 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

              Errors in the medication process: frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences.

              To investigate the frequency, type, and consequences of medication errors in more stages of the medication process, including discharge summaries. A cross-sectional study using three methods to detect errors in the medication process: direct observations, unannounced control visits, and chart reviews. With the exception of errors in discharge summaries all potential medication error consequences were evaluated by physicians and pharmacists. A randomly selected medical and surgical department at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Eligible in-hospital patients aged 18 or over (n = 64), physicians prescribing drugs and nurses dispensing and administering drugs. Frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences of all detected errors compared with the total number of opportunities for error. We detected a total of 1065 errors in 2467 opportunities for errors (43%). In worst case scenario 20-30% of all evaluated medication errors were assessed as potential adverse drug events. In each stage the frequency of medication errors were-ordering: 167/433 (39%), transcription: 310/558 (56%), dispensing: 22/538 (4%), administration: 166/412 (41%), and finally discharge summaries: 401/526 (76%). The most common types of error throughout the medication process were: lack of drug form, unordered drug, omission of drug/dose, and lack of identity control. There is a need for quality improvement, as almost 50% of all errors in doses and prescriptions in the medication process were caused by missing actions. We assume that the number of errors could be reduced by simple changes of existing procedures or by implementing automated technologies in the medication process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2013
                20 June 2013
                : 8
                : 6
                : e68856
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pharmacy, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                [2 ]INSERM, UMR S 872, Equipe 22, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France
                [3 ]INSERM, Centre d’Investigation Épidémiologique 4, Paris, France
                [4 ]Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Economie de Santé, EA4410, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
                [5 ]Université Paris-Sud 11, Chatenay-Malabry, France
                [6 ]Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France
                [7 ]Department of Medical Informatics, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
                Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: SB TC PP PD BS. Performed the experiments: SB BS PD. Analyzed the data: FG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SB FG TC PP PD BS. Wrote the manuscript: SB. Contributed to the various drafts of the report: SB FG TC PP PD BS.

                Article
                PONE-D-12-33235
                10.1371/journal.pone.0068856
                3688612
                23818992
                cb3fd527-4e0a-4f81-a852-61e82fa8bdba
                Copyright @ 2013

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 28 October 2012
                : 4 June 2013
                Funding
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article