Clinical and economic impact of medication administration errors among neonates in neonatal intensive care units.

Despite efforts in improving medication safety, medication administration errors are still common, resulting in significant clinical and economic impact. Studies conducted using a valid and reliable tool to assess clinical impact are lacking, and to the best of our knowledge, studies evaluating the economic impact of medication administration errors among neonates are not yet available. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the potential clinical and economic impact of medication administration errors in neonatal intensive care units and identify the factors associated with these errors. A national level, multi centre, prospective direct observational study was conducted in the neonatal intensive care units of five Malaysian public hospitals. The nurses preparing and administering the medications were directly observed. After the data were collected, two clinical pharmacists conducted independent assessments to identify errors. An expert panel of healthcare professionals assessed each medication administration error for its potential clinical and economic outcome. A validated visual analogue scale was used to ascertain the potential clinical outcome. The mean severity index for each error was subsequently calculated. The potential economic impact of each error was determined by averaging each expert's input. Multinomial logistic regression and multiple linear regression were used to identify factors associated with the severity and cost of the errors, respectively. A total of 1,018 out of 1,288 (79.0%) errors were found to be potentially moderate in severity, while only 30 (2.3%) were found to be potentially severe. The potential economic impact was estimated at USD 27,452.10. Factors significantly associated with severe medication administration errors were the medications administered intravenously, the presence of high-alert medications, unavailability of a protocol, and younger neonates. Moreover, factors significantly associated with moderately severe errors were intravenous medication administration, younger neonates, and an increased number of medications administered. In the multiple linear regression analysis, the independent variables found to be significantly associated with cost were the intravenous route of administration and the use of high-alert medications. In conclusion, medication administration errors were judged to be mainly moderate in severity costing USD 14.04 (2.22-22.53) per error. This study revealed important insights and highlights the need to implement effective error reducing strategies to improve patient safety among neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Prevalence and factors associated with medication administration errors in the neonatal intensive care unit: A multicentre, nationwide direct observational study.

AIM(S): To determine the prevalence of medication administration errors and identify factors associated with medication administration errors among neonates in the neonatal intensive care units. DESIGN: Prospective direct observational study. METHODS: The study was conducted in the neonatal intensive care units of five public hospitals in Malaysia from April 2022 to March 2023. The preparation and administration of medications were observed using a standardized data collection form followed by chart review. After data collection, error identification was independently performed by two clinical pharmacists. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with medication administration errors. RESULTS: A total of 743 out of 1093 observed doses had at least one error, affecting 92.4% (157/170) neonates. The rate of medication administration errors was 68.0%. The top three most frequently occurring types of medication administration errors were wrong rate of administration (21.2%), wrong drug preparation (17.9%) and wrong dose (17.0%). Factors significantly associated with medication administration errors were medications administered intravenously, unavailability of a protocol, the number of prescribed medications, nursing experience, non-ventilated neonates and gestational age in weeks. CONCLUSION: Medication administration errors among neonates in the neonatal intensive care units are still common. The intravenous route of administration, absence of a protocol, younger gestational age, non-ventilated neonates, higher number of medications prescribed and increased years of nursing experience were significantly associated with medication administration errors. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The findings of this study will enable the implementation of effective and sustainable interventions to target the factors identified in reducing medication administration errors among neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit. REPORTING METHOD: We adhered to the STROBE checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An expert panel consisting of healthcare professionals was involved in the identification of independent variables.

Nurses' perception of medication administration errors and factors associated with their reporting in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Medication administration is a complex process, and nurses play a central role in this process. Errors during administration are associated with severe patient harm and significant economic burden. However, the prevalence of under-reporting makes it challenging when analysing the current landscape of medication administration error (MAE) and hinders the implementation of improvements to the existing system. The aim of this study is to describe the reasons for the occurrence of MAEs and the reasons behind the under-reporting of MAEs, to determine the estimated percentage of MAE reporting and to identify factors associated with them from the nurses' perspective. This cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 65 questions which were divided into three sections: (i) reasons for the occurrence of MAEs, which consisted of 29 items; (ii) reasons for not reporting MAEs, which consisted of 16 items; and (iii) percentage of MAEs actually reported, which consisted of 20 items. It was distributed to 143 nurses in the neonatal intensive care units of five public hospitals in Malaysia. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with MAE reporting. The estimated percentage of MAE reporting was 30.6%. The most common reasons for MAEs were inadequate nursing staff (5.14 [SD 1.25]), followed by drugs which look alike (4.65 [SD 1.06]) and similar drug packaging (4.41 [SD 1.18]). The most common reasons for not reporting MAEs were that nursing administration focuses on the individual rather than looking at the systems as a potential cause of the error (4.56 [SD 1.32]) and that too much emphasis is placed on MAEs as a measure of the quality of nursing care (4.31 [SD 1.23]). Factors statistically significant with MAE reporting were administration response (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 6.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.01-23.67; P = 0.002), reporting effort (AOR = 3.67; 95% CI = 1.68-8.01; P = 0.001), and nurses with advanced diploma (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.13-0.65; P = 0.003). Our findings show that under-reporting of MAEs is still common and less than a third of the respondents reported MAEs. Therefore, to encourage error reporting, emphasis should be placed on the benefits of reporting, adopting a non-punitive approach, and creating a blame-free culture.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for medication administration errors among neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Medication administration errors (MAEs) are the most common type of medication error. Furthermore, they are more common among neonates as compared with adults. MAEs can result in severe patient harm, subsequently causing a significant economic burden to the healthcare system. Targeting and prioritising neonates at high risk of MAEs is crucial in reducing MAEs. To the best of our knowledge, there is no predictive risk score available for the identification of neonates at risk of MAEs. Therefore, this study aims to develop and validate a risk prediction model to identify neonates at risk of MAEs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective direct observational study that will be conducted in five neonatal intensive care units. A minimum sample size of 820 drug preparations and administrations will be observed. Data including patient characteristics, drug preparation-related and administration-related information and other procedures will be recorded. After each round of observation, the observers will compare his/her observations with the prescriber's medication order, hospital policies and manufacturer's recommendations to determine whether MAE has occurred. To ensure reliability, the error identification will be independently performed by two clinical pharmacists after the completion of data collection for all study sites. Any disagreements will be discussed with the research team for consensus. To reduce overfitting and improve the quality of risk predictions, we have prespecified a priori the analytical plan, that is, prespecifying the candidate predictor variables, handling missing data and validation of the developed model. The model's performance will also be assessed. Finally, various modes of presentation formats such as a simplified scoring tool or web-based electronic risk calculators will be considered.

Prevalence, Causes and Severity of Medication Administration Errors in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Neonates are at greater risk of preventable adverse drug events as compared to children and adults. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate and critically appraise the evidence on the prevalence, causes and severity of medication administration errors (MAEs) amongst neonates in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching nine electronic databases and the grey literature for studies, without language and publication date restrictions. The pooled prevalence of MAEs was estimated using a random-effects model. Data on error causation were synthesised using Reason's model of accident causation. RESULTS: Twenty unique studies were included. Amongst direct observation studies reporting total opportunity for errors as the denominator for MAEs, the pooled prevalence was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.4-81.3, I2 = 99.5%). Whereas, the non-direct observation studies reporting medication error reports as the denominator yielded a pooled prevalence of 64.8% (95% CI 46.6-81.1, I2 = 98.2%). The common reported causes were error-provoking environments (five studies), while active failures were reported by three studies. Only three studies examined the severity of MAEs, and each utilised a different method of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis estimating the prevalence, causes and severity of MAEs amongst neonates. There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of studies to produce a better estimate of the prevalence of MAEs amongst neonates. Important targets such as wrong administration-technique, wrong drug-preparation and wrong time errors have been identified to guide the implementation of remedial measures.