1. Systemic Causes of In-Hospital Intravenous Medication Errors: A Systematic Review.
期刊:Journal of patient safety
日期:2021-12-01
DOI :10.1097/PTS.0000000000000632
OBJECTIVES:Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of in-hospital intravenous medication errors. METHODS:A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the GRADE system and the evidence analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS:Eleven studies from six countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic causes related to prescribing (n = 6 studies), preparation (n = 6), administration (n = 6), dispensing and storage (n = 5), and treatment monitoring (n = 2). Administration, prescribing, and preparation were the process phases most prone to systemic errors. Insufficient actions to secure safe use of high-alert medications, lack of knowledge of the drug, calculation tasks, failure in double-checking procedures, and confusion between look-alike, sound-alike medications were the leading causes of intravenous medication errors. The number of the included studies was limited, all of them being observational studies and graded as low quality. CONCLUSIONS:Current intravenous medication systems remain vulnerable, which can result in patient harm. Our findings suggest further focus on medication safety activities related to administration, prescribing, and preparation of intravenous medications. This study provides healthcare organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic causes of intravenous medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed.
添加收藏
创建看单
引用
4区Q4影响因子: 1.5
打开PDF
登录
英汉
2. Incidence and prevalence of intravenous medication errors in the UK: a systematic review.
作者:Sutherland Adam , Canobbio Michela , Clarke Janine , Randall Michelle , Skelland Tom , Weston Emma
期刊:European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice
日期:2018-10-23
DOI :10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-001624
Objectives:Medication error is the most common type of medical error, and intravenous medicines are at a higher risk as they are complex to prepare and administer. The WHO advocates a 50% reduction of harmful medication errors by 2022, but there is a lack of data in the UK that accurately estimates the true rate of intravenous medication errors. This study aimed to estimate the number of intravenous medication errors per 1000 administrations in the UK National Health Service and their associated economic costs. The rate of errors in prescribing, preparation and administration, and rate of different types of errors were also extracted. Methods:MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane central register of clinical trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Appraisals Database were searched from inception to July 2017. Epidemiological studies to determine the incidence of intravenous medication errors set wholly or in part in the UK were included. 228 studies were identified, and after screening, eight papers were included, presenting 2576 infusions. Data were reviewed and extracted by a team of five reviewers with discrepancies in data extraction agreed by consensus. Results:Five of eight studies used a comparable denominator, and these data were pooled to determine a weighted mean incidence of 101 intravenous medication errors per 1000 administrations (95% CI 84 to 121). Three studies presented prevalence data but these were based on spontaneous reports only; therefore it did not support a true estimate. 32.1% (95% CI 30.6% to 33.7%) of intravenous medication errors were administration errors and 'wrong rate' errors accounted for 57.9% (95% CI 54.7% to 61.1%) of these. Conclusion:Intravenous medication errors in the UK are common, with half these of errors related to medication administration. National strategies are aimed at mitigating errors in prescribing and preparation. It is now time to focus on reducing administration error, particularly wrong rate errors.
添加收藏
创建看单
引用
4区Q2影响因子: 2
英汉
3. Intravenous medication errors in the emergency department, knowledge, tendency to make errors and affecting factors: An observational study.
期刊:International emergency nursing
日期:2022-07-06
DOI :10.1016/j.ienj.2022.101190
BACKGROUND:Intravenous medication errors are common in hospital settings particularly emergency department. This study aimed to determine intravenous medication preparation and administration errors, contributing factors, tendency towards making errors and knowledge level of emergency department healthcare workers. METHODS:A cross-sectional study using a structured, direct observation method was conducted. It was conducted with 23 emergency healthcare workers working in the emergency department of a university hospital in Turkey. Data were collected by questionnaires: Knowledge Test on Intravenous Medication Administration, Intravenous Drug Administration Standard Observation Form, Drug and Transfusion Administration Sub-Dimension scale, Perceived Stress Scale and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. RESULTS:It was determined that the knowledge level of the emergency healthcare workers about intravenous medication administration was moderate, and the tendency mistakes regarding drug and transfusion applications was very low. There was no relationship between education level, years of work, years of work in the emergency department, perceived stress level and sleep quality, and the tendency of making mistakes in drug and transfusion applications. CONCLUSION:It is important for patient safety to prevent medication errors by determining the factors affecting intravenous medication administration, tendency to make mistakes and knowledge levels, which are frequently used in emergency department.
添加收藏
创建看单
引用
2区Q1影响因子: 2.5
跳转PDF
登录
英汉
4. Pediatric surgical errors: A systematic scoping review.
期刊:Journal of pediatric surgery
日期:2021-07-27
DOI :10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.07.019
BACKGROUND:Medical errors were largely concealed prior to the landmark report "To Err Is Human". The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to determine the extent pediatric surgery defines and studies errors, and to explore themes among papers focused on errors in pediatric surgery. METHODS:The methodological framework used to conduct this scoping study has been outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. In January 2020, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Oxford Level of Evidence was assigned to each study; only studies rated Level 3 or higher were included. RESULTS:Of 3,064 initial studies, 12 were included in the final analysis: 4 cohort studies, and 8 outcome/audit studies. This data represented 5,442,000 aggregate patients and 8,893 errors. There were 6 different error definitions and 5 study methods. Common themes amongst the studies included a systems-focused approach, an increase in errors seen with increased complexity, and studies exploring the relationship between error and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:This study revealed multiple error definitions, multiple error study methods, and common themes described in the pediatric surgical literature. Opportunities exist to improve the safety of surgical care of children by reducing errors. Original Scientific Research Type of Study: Systematic Scoping Review Level of Evidence Rating: 1.
添加收藏
创建看单
引用
1区Q1影响因子: 7.1
英汉
5. The impact of person-centred care on patient safety: An umbrella review of systematic reviews.
期刊:International journal of nursing studies
日期:2020-06-02
DOI :10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103658
BACKGROUND:Nursing literature frequently emphasises the benefits of person-centred approaches for healthcare quality and safety. OBJECTIVE:This umbrella review aimed to synthesise the combined evidence from systematic reviews assessing the impact of person-centred care interventions on patient safety. DESIGN:A three-step review process included a preliminary review of literature, a comprehensive search, and manual searching of reference lists and forward citations of selected reviews. The review protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD42018090048). DATA SOURCES:Reviewers searched 10 databases for systematic reviews published in English-language peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2019: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, JBI Database, Medline, ProQuest Health & Medicine, PROSPERO Register, PubMed and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS:Covidence software was used to manage screening and eligibility. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts of articles for eligibility, and appraised the quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. RESULTS:From an initial total of 3412 potential titles, 16 reviews met the inclusion criteria. The selected reviews examined the impact of person-centred care for diverse groups of patients (children, adults and older people) in varied settings. Most systematic reviews assessed experimental studies, generally comparing person-centred interventions with 'usual care', often demonstrating limited evidence of impact on safety. Reviews addressed several patient safety outcomes relevant to nursing, including falls, infections, medication use and misuse, and mortality rates. The systematic reviews were generally well conducted, although several included studies of poor or fair quality. Given the heterogeneity of the interventions, outcomes and research designs of studies included in the selected reviews, we were unable to draw unequivocal conclusions about the implications of person-centred care for patient safety in this umbrella review. However, there was some encouraging evidence that person-centred care initiatives may result in reduced rates of falls (in acute care and residential aged care settings). The review also highlighted reductions in agitation for people with dementia and some improvement in anti-psychotic medication use in older people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS:Although abundant evidence exists demonstrating the positive effects of person-centred care on healthcare quality and on patient (and provider) wellbeing, there is little research focussing specifically on the impact of person-centred care on patient safety. Thus, there is scope for further high-quality nursing research into how person-centred interventions improve specific patient safety outcomes in order to inform more widespread adoption of person-centred practice.