Aim: In-hospital prescribing errors (PEs) may result in patient harm, prolonged hospitalization and hospital (re)admission. These events are associated with pressure on healthcare services and significant healthcare costs. To develop targeted interventions to prevent or reduce in-hospital PEs, identification and understanding of facilitating and protective factors influencing in-hospital PEs in current daily practice is necessary, adopting a Safety-II perspective. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of all factors reported in the literature, both protective and facilitating, as influencing in-hospital PEs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library (via Wiley) were searched, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, for studies that identified factors influencing in-hospital PEs. Both qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. Results: Overall, 19 articles (6 qualitative and 13 quantitative studies) were included and 40 unique factors influencing in-hospital PEs were identified. These factors were categorized into five domains according to the Eindhoven classification (‘organization-related’, ‘prescriber-related’, ‘prescription-related’, ‘technologyrelated’ and ‘unclassified’) and visualized in an Ishikawa (Fishbone) diagram. Most of the identified factors (87.5%; n = 40) facilitated in-hospital PEs. The most frequently identified facilitating factor (39.6%; n = 19) was ‘insufficient (drug) knowledge, prescribing skills and/or experience of prescribers’. Conclusion: The findings of this review could be used to identify points of engagement for future intervention studies and help hospitals determine how to optimize prescribing. A multifaceted intervention, targeting multiple factors might help to circumvent the complex challenge of in-hospital PEs.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has neces‑ sitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identifed as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescrib‑ ing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post–COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the frst wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3months after discharge. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identifed PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identifed ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16–17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34–21.5) as independent risk fac‑ tors for PEs. Conclusions: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Many hospitalised patients are affected by medication errors (MEs) that may cause discomfort, harm and even death. Children are at especially high risk of harm as the result of MEs because such errors are potentially more hazardous to them than to adults. Until now, interventions to reduce MEs have led to only limited improvements.OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing MEs and related harm in hospitalised children.SEARCH METHODS: The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following sources for primary studies: The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and the Health Technology Assessments (HTA) database; MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, Web of Science (citation indexes and conference proceedings) and the EPOC Register of Studies. Related reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Review authors searched grey literature sources and trial registries. They handsearched selected journals, contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. They conducted searches in November 2013 and November 2014. They applied neither language nor date limits.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series investigating interventions to improve medication safety in hospitalised children (≤ 18 years). Participants were healthcare professionals authorised to prescribe, dispense or administer medications. Outcome measures included MEs, (potential) patient harm, resource utilisation and unintended consequences of the interventions.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the EPOC data collection checklist. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence. We described results narratively and presented them using GRADE tables.MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies describing five different interventions: participation of a clinical pharmacist in a clinical team (n = 2), introduction of a computerised physician order entry system (n = 2), implementation of a barcode medication administration system (n = 1), use of a structured prescribing form (n = 1) and implementation of a check and control checklist in combination with feedback (n = 1).Clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Although some interventions described in this review show a decrease in MEs, the results are not consistent, and none of the studies resulted in a significant reduction in patient harm. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality and strengfh of the evidence are low.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on effective interventions to prevent MEs in a paediatric population in hospital is limited. Comparative studies with robust study designs are needed to investigate interventions including components that focus on specific paediatric safety issues.
DOCUMENT
Aims: Medication non-adherence post-discharge is common among patients, especially those suffering from chronic medical conditions, and contributes to hospital admissions and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) intervention on medication adherence post-discharge. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the CCB randomized single-blind trial, a study in patients ≥70 years, at high risk of functional loss and admitted to cardiology departments in six hospitals. In this multi-component intervention study, community nurses performed medication reconciliation and observed medication-related problems (MRPs) during post-discharge home visits, and pharmacists provided recommendations to resolve MRPs. Adherence to high-risk medications was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC), using pharmacy refill data. Furthermore, MRPs were assessed in the intervention group. Results: For 198 (64.7%) of 306 CCB patients, data were available on adherence (mean age: 82 years; 58.9% of patients used a multidose drug dispensing [MDD] system). The mean PDC before admission was 92.3% in the intervention group (n = 99) and 88.5% in the control group (n = 99), decreasing to 85.2% and 84.1% post-discharge, respectively (unadjusted difference: -2.6% (95% CI -9.8 to 4.6, P = .473); adjusted difference -3.3 (95% CI -10.3 to 3.7, P = .353)). Post-hoc analysis indicated that a modest beneficial intervention effect may be restricted to MDD non-users (Pinteraction = .085). In total, 77.0% of the patients had at least one MRP post-discharge. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that a multi-component intervention, including several components targeting medication adherence in older cardiac patients discharged from hospital back home, did not benefit their medication adherence levels. A modest positive effect on adherence may potentially exist in those patients not using an MDD system. This finding needs replication.
LINK
AimsMedication non-adherence post-discharge is common among patients, especially those suffering from chronic medical conditions, and contributes to hospital admissions and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) intervention on medication adherence post-discharge.MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of the CCB randomized single-blind trial, a study in patients ≥70 years, at high risk of functional loss and admitted to cardiology departments in six hospitals. In this multi-component intervention study, community nurses performed medication reconciliation and observed medication-related problems (MRPs) during post-discharge home visits, and pharmacists provided recommendations to resolve MRPs. Adherence to high-risk medications was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC), using pharmacy refill data. Furthermore, MRPs were assessed in the intervention group.ResultsFor 198 (64.7%) of 306 CCB patients, data were available on adherence (mean age: 82 years; 58.9% of patients used a multidose drug dispensing [MDD] system). The mean PDC before admission was 92.3% in the intervention group (n = 99) and 88.5% in the control group (n = 99), decreasing to 85.2% and 84.1% post-discharge, respectively (unadjusted difference: −2.6% (95% CI −9.8 to 4.6, P = .473); adjusted difference −3.3 (95% CI −10.3 to 3.7, P = .353)). Post-hoc analysis indicated that a modest beneficial intervention effect may be restricted to MDD non-users (P interaction = .085). In total, 77.0% of the patients had at least one MRP post-discharge.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that a multi-component intervention, including several components targeting medication adherence in older cardiac patients discharged from hospital back home, did not benefit their medication adherence levels. A modest positive effect on adherence may potentially exist in those patients not using an MDD system. This finding needs replication.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing activity. To monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and safety of this process, evidence-based quality indicators can be used.OBJECTIVES: The aim of study was to identify evidence-based quality indicators (structure, process and outcome) for safe in-hospital medication preparation and administration.METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2015. Additionally, nine databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the method for quality indicator development combined a literature search with expert panel opinion, (2) the study contained quality indicators on medication safety, and (3) any of the quality indicators were applicable to hospital medication preparation and administration. A multidisciplinary team appraised the studies independently using the AIRE instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. Quality indicators applicable to in-hospital medication preparation and administration were extracted using a structured form.RESULTS: The search identified 1683 studies, of which 64 were reviewed in detail and five met the inclusion criteria. Overall, according to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose; most of them applied stakeholder involvement and used evidence reasonably; usage of the indicator in practice was scarcely described. A total of 21 quality indicators were identified: 5 structure indicators (e.g. safety management and high alert medication), 11 process indicators (e.g. verification and protocols) and 5 outcome indicators (e.g. harm and death). These quality indicators partially cover the 7 rights.CONCLUSION: Despite the relatively small number of included studies, the identified quality indicators can serve as an excellent starting point for further development of nursing specific quality indicators for medication safety. Especially on the right patient, right route, right time and right documentation there is room future development of quality indicators.
MULTIFILE
Purpose: To describe nurses' support interventions for medication adherence, and patients' experiences and desired improvements with this care. Patients and methods: A two-phase study was performed, including an analysis of questionnaire data and conducted interviews with members of the care panel of the Netherlands Patients Federation. The questionnaire assessed 14 types of interventions, satisfaction (score 0-10) with received interventions, needs, experiences, and desired improvements in nurses' support. Interviews further explored experiences and improvements. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis approach. Results: Fifty-nine participants completed the questionnaire, and 14 of the 59 participants were interviewed. The satisfaction score for interventions was 7.9 (IQR 7-9). The most common interventions were: "noticing when I don't take medication as prescribed" (n = 35), "helping me to find solutions to overcome problems with using medications" (n = 32), "helping me with taking medication" (n = 32), and "explaining the importance of taking medication at the right moment" (n = 32). Fifteen participants missed ≥1 of the 14 interventions. Most mentioned the following: "regularly asking about potential problems with medication use" (33%), "regularly discussing whether using medication is going well" (29%), and "explaining the importance of taking medication at the right moment" (27%). Twenty-two participants experienced the following as positive: improved self-management of adequate medication taking, a professional patient-nurse relationship to discuss adherence problems, and nurses' proactive attitude to arrange practical support for medication use. Thirteen patients experienced the following as negative: insufficient timing of home visits, rushed appearance of nurses, and insufficient expertise about side effects and taking medication. Suggested improvements included performing home visits on time, more time for providing support in medication use, and more expertise about side effects and administering medication. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied, and few participants wanted more interventions. Nurses' support improved participants' self-management of medication taking and enabled patients to discuss their adherence problems. Adequately timed home visits, more time for support, and accurate medication-related knowledge are desired.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to improve medication safety for children; it is important to quantify the occurrence of preventable medication errors (MEs). A trigger tool may be an effective and time-saving strategy, but its measurement performance is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the performance of a pediatric medication-focused trigger tool in detecting harmful MEs.METHODS: First, we established a multifaceted method as a reference comparison. Second, we compared the pediatric medication-focused trigger tool with the multifaceted method in a new cohort of patients. All patients admitted in February and March 2013 were screened using the trigger tool and the multifaceted method to obtain full verification. Data collection was performed in separate teams to guarantee blinding of the test results.RESULTS: Review of the clinical records and the voluntary incident reports was most effective in detecting harmful MEs, so this approach was chosen as a reference comparison. In the second part of the study, 369 patients were included. The multifaceted method identified 33 harmful MEs. In contrast, the trigger tool did not identify any harm. When the 2 symptoms pain and nausea/vomiting were added to the trigger tool, 19 harmful MEs were identified. This extended trigger tool resulted in a sensitivity of 21.2 and a positive predictive value of 36.8.CONCLUSIONS: The original pediatric medication-focused trigger tool yielded only false-positive scores and left unsafe situations undiscovered. We conclude that a multifaceted method remains the preferred method to detect harmful MEs. The additional value of the trigger tool stays unclear.
DOCUMENT
Aims: Prescribing medication is a complex process that, when done inappropriately, can lead to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm and hospital admissions. Worldwide cost is estimated at 42 billion USD each year. Despite several efforts in the past years, medication-related harm has not declined. The aim was to determine whether a prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention, initiated by a multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy team, is able to reduce the number of in-hospital prescriptions containing ≥1 prescribing error (PE), by identifying and reducing challenges in appropriate prescribing. Methods: A prospective single-centre before- and after study was conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands. Twelve clinical wards (medical, surgical, mixed and paediatric) were recruited. Results: Overall, 321 patients with a total of 2978 prescriptions at baseline were compared with 201 patients with 2438 prescriptions postintervention. Of these, m456 prescriptions contained ≥1 PE (15.3%) at baseline and 357 prescriptions contained ≥1 PEs (14.6%) postintervention. PEs were determined in multidisciplinary consensus. On some study wards, a trend toward a decreasing number of PEs was observed. The intervention was associated with a nonsignificant difference in PEs (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83–1.10), which was unaltered after correction. The most important identified challenges were insufficient knowledge beyond own expertise, unawareness of guidelines and a heavy workload. Conclusion: The tailored interventions developed with and implemented by stakeholders led to a statistically nonsignificant reduction in inappropriate in-hospital prescribing after a 6-month intervention period. Our prescriber-focussed participatory action intervention identified challenges in appropriate in-hospital prescribing on prescriber- and organizational level.
MULTIFILE
ABSTRACT Background: We investigated if the addition of an inter-professional student-led medication review team (ISP-team) to standard care can increase the number of detected ADRs and reduce the number of ADRs 3 months after an outpatient visit. Research design and methods: In this controlled clinical trial, patients were allocated to standard care (control group) or standard care plus the ISP team (intervention group). The ISP team consisted of medical and pharmacy students and student nurse practitioners. The team performed a structured medication review and adjusted medication to reduce the number of ADRs. Three months after the outpatient visit, a clinical pharmacologist who was blinded for allocation performed a follow-up telephone interview to determine whether patients experienced ADRs. Results: During the outpatient clinic visit, significantly more (p < 0.001) ADRs were detected in the intervention group (n = 48) than in the control group (n = 10). In both groups, 60–63% of all detected ADRs were managed. Three months after the outpatient visit, significantly fewer (predominantly mild and moderately severe) ADRs related to benzodiazepine derivatives and antihypertensive causing dizziness were detected in the patients of the intervention group. Conclusions: An ISP team in addition to standard care increases the detection and management of ADRs in elderly patients resulting in fewer mild and moderately severe ADRs
MULTIFILE
