+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Errors in administration of parenteral drugs in intensive care units: multinational prospective study


      Read this article at

          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.


          Objective To assess on a multinational level the frequency, characteristics, contributing factors, and preventive measures of administration errors in parenteral medication in intensive care units.

          Design Observational, prospective, 24 hour cross sectional study with self reporting by staff.

          Setting 113 intensive care units in 27 countries.

          Participants 1328 adults in intensive care.

          Main outcome measures Number of errors; impact of errors; distribution of error characteristics; distribution of contributing and preventive factors.

          Results 861 errors affecting 441 patients were reported: 74.5 (95% confidence interval 69.5 to 79.4) events per 100 patient days. Three quarters of the errors were classified as errors of omission. Twelve patients (0.9% of the study population) experienced permanent harm or died because of medication errors at the administration stage. In a multiple logistic regression with patients as the unit of analysis, odds ratios for the occurrence of at least one parenteral medication error were raised for number of organ failures (odds ratio per increase of one organ failure: 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.34); use of any intravenous medication (yes v no: 2.73, 1.39 to 5.36); number of parenteral administrations (per increase of one parenteral administration: 1.06, 1.04 to 1.08); typical interventions in patients in intensive care (yes v no: 1.50, 1.14 to 1.96); larger intensive care unit (per increase of one bed: 1.01, 1.00 to 1.02); number of patients per nurse (per increase of one patient: 1.30, 1.03 to 1.64); and occupancy rate (per 10% increase: 1.03, 1.00 to 1.05). Odds ratios for the occurrence of parenteral medication errors were decreased for presence of basic monitoring (yes v no: 0.19, 0.07 to 0.49); an existing critical incident reporting system (yes v no: 0.69, 0.53 to 0.90); an established routine of checks at nurses’ shift change (yes v no: 0.68, 0.52 to 0.90); and an increased ratio of patient turnover to the size of the unit (per increase of one patient: 0.73, 0.57 to 0.93).

          Conclusions Parenteral medication errors at the administration stage are common and a serious safety problem in intensive care units. With the increasing complexity of care in critically ill patients, organisational factors such as error reporting systems and routine checks can reduce the risk for such errors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

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

          The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care.

          Critically ill patients require high-intensity care and may be at especially high risk of iatrogenic injury because they are severely ill. We sought to study the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious errors in the critical care setting. We conducted a prospective 1-year observational study. Incidents were collected with use of a multifaceted approach including direct continuous observation. Two physicians independently assessed incident type, severity, and preventability as well as systems-related and individual performance failures. Academic, tertiary-care urban hospital. Medical intensive care unit and coronary care unit patients. None. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence and rates of adverse events and serious errors per 1000 patient-days. A total of 391 patients with 420 unit admissions were studied during 1490 patient-days. We found 120 adverse events in 79 patients (20.2%), including 66 (55%) nonpreventable and 54 (45%) preventable adverse events as well as 223 serious errors. The rates per 1000 patient-days for all adverse events, preventable adverse events, and serious errors were 80.5, 36.2, and 149.7, respectively. Among adverse events, 13% (16/120) were life-threatening or fatal; and among serious errors, 11% (24/223) were potentially life-threatening. Most serious medical errors occurred during the ordering or execution of treatments, especially medications (61%; 170/277). Performance level failures were most commonly slips and lapses (53%; 148/277), rather than rule-based or knowledge-based mistakes. Adverse events and serious errors involving critically ill patients were common and often potentially life-threatening. Although many types of errors were identified, failure to carry out intended treatment correctly was the leading category.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys.

            To survey operating theatre and intensive care unit staff about attitudes concerning error, stress, and teamwork and to compare these attitudes with those of airline cockpit crew. : Cross sectional surveys. : Urban teaching and non-teaching hospitals in the United States, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Major airlines around the world. : 1033 doctors, nurses, fellows, and residents working in operating theatres and intensive care units and over 30 000 cockpit crew members (captains, first officers, and second officers). : Perceptions of error, stress, and teamwork. : Pilots were least likely to deny the effects of fatigue on performance (26% v 70% of consultant surgeons and 47% of consultant anaesthetists). Most pilots (97%) and intensive care staff (94%) rejected steep hierarchies (in which senior team members are not open to input from junior members), but only 55% of consultant surgeons rejected such hierarchies. High levels of teamwork with consultant surgeons were reported by 73% of surgical residents, 64% of consultant surgeons, 39% of anaesthesia consultants, 28% of surgical nurses, 25% of anaesthetic nurses, and 10% of anaesthetic residents. Only a third of staff reported that errors are handled appropriately at their hospital. A third of intensive care staff did not acknowledge that they make errors. Over half of intensive care staff reported that they find it difficult to discuss mistakes. Medical staff reported that error is important but difficult to discuss and not handled well in their hospital. Barriers to discussing error are more important since medical staff seem to deny the effect of stress and fatigue on performance. Further problems include differing perceptions of teamwork among team members and reluctance of senior theatre staff to accept input from junior members.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit.

              The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit (ICU), adopting approaches proposed by human factors engineering. The basic assumption was that errors occur and follow a pattern that can be uncovered. Concurrent incident study. Medical-surgical ICU of a university hospital. Two types of data were collected: errors reported by physicians and nurses immediately after an error discovery; and activity profiles based on 24-hr records taken by observers with human engineering experience on a sample of patients. During the 4 months of data collection, a total of 554 human errors were reported by the medical staff. Errors were rated for severity and classified according to the body system and type of medical activity involved. There was an average of 178 activities per patient per day and an estimated number of 1.7 errors per patient per day. For the ICU as a whole, a severe or potentially detrimental error occurred on the average twice a day. Physicians and nurses were about equal contributors to the number of errors, although nurses had many more activities per day. A significant number of dangerous human errors occur in the ICU. Many of these errors could be attributed to problems of communication between the physicians and nurses. Applying human factor engineering concepts to the study of the weak points of a specific ICU may help to reduce the number of errors. Errors should not be considered as an incurable disease, but rather as preventable phenomena.

                Author and article information

                Role: associate professor, Role: director of intensive care unit
                Role: consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: statistician
                Role: professor and head of core unit of medical statistics and informatics
                Role: professor
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                12 March 2009
                : 338
                : b814
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]Rudolfstiftung Hospital, Medical Department II, Juchgasse 25, A-1030 Vienna
                [3 ]Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
                [4 ]INSERM, Unité de Recherche en Epidemiologié, Systemes d’Information, et Modelisation, Paris, France
                [5 ]Faculty of Medicine, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris
                [6 ]Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Service de Réanimation Médicale, Paris
                [7 ]Department of Intensive Care, Hospital de St António dos Capuchos, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa (central, e.p.e), Lisbon, Portugal
                [8 ]Section of Medical Statistics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna
                [9 ]Department of Anaesthesiology and General Intensive Care, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A Valentin andreas.valentin@ 123456meduniwien.ac.at
                © Valentin 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.

                : 5 December 2008



                Comment on this article