13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      PRN Medicines Optimization and Nurse Education

      discussion

      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

          Medicines management is a high-risk and error prone process in healthcare settings, where nurses play an important role to preserve patient safety. In order to create a safe healthcare environment, nurses should recognize challenges that they face in this process, understand factors leading to medication errors, identify errors and systematically address them to prevent their future occurrence. “ Pro re nata” (PRN, as needed) medicine administration is a relatively neglected area of medicines management in nursing practice, yet has a high potential for medication errors. Currently, the international literature indicates a lack of knowledge of both the competencies required for PRN medicines management and the optimum educational strategies to prepare students for PRN medicines management. To address this deficiency in the literature, the authors have presented a discussion on nurses’ roles in medication safety and the significance and purpose of PRN medications, and suggest a model for preparing nursing students in safe PRN medicines management. The discussion takes into account patient participation and nurse competencies required to safeguard PRN medication practice, providing a background for further research on how to improve the safety of PRN medicines management in clinical practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references117

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

          Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review.

          The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings. In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%. This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

              Abstract Objective To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched. Review methods Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. Results Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10). Conclusions Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pharmacy (Basel)
                Pharmacy (Basel)
                pharmacy
                Pharmacy: Journal of Pharmacy Education and Practice
                MDPI
                2226-4787
                26 October 2020
                December 2020
                : 8
                : 4
                : 201
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, 8049 Bodø, Norway
                [2 ]Department of Nursing, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK; s.e.jordan@ 123456swansea.ac.uk
                [3 ]Nursing Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Alicante, 03080 Alicante, Spain; flores.vizcaya@ 123456ua.es
                [4 ]Hospital Graz II, A Regional Hospital of the Health Care Company of Styria, 8020 Graz, Austria; ingrid.friedl@ 123456kages.at
                [5 ]Institute of Nursing Science and Practice, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; manela.glarcher@ 123456pmu.ac.at
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: mojtaba.vaismoradi@ 123456nord.no ; Tel.: +47-75517813
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5157-4886
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5691-2987
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8826-9877
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6807-6971
                Article
                pharmacy-08-00201
                10.3390/pharmacy8040201
                7712763
                33114731
                f3c3c682-907d-41b2-a3a6-5a2488ebde88
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 September 2020
                : 23 October 2020
                Categories
                Discussion

                education,medicines management,nurse,patient safety,pro re nata,prn

                Comments

                Comment on this article