Child Age and Risk of Medication Error: A Multisite Children's Hospital Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine associations between patient age and medication errors among pediatric inpatients. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data sets generated from 2 tertiary pediatric hospitals: (1) prescribing errors identified from chart reviews for patients on 9 general wards at hospital A during April 22 to July 10, 2016, June 20 to September 20, 2017, and June 20 to September 30, 2020; prescribing errors from 5 wards at hospital B in the same periods and (2) medication administration errors assessed by direct prospective observation of 5137 administrations on 9 wards at hospital A. Multilevel models examined the association between patient age and medication errors. Age was modeled using restricted cubic splines to allow for nonlinearity. RESULTS: Prescribing errors increased nonlinearly with patient age (P = .01), showing little association from ages 0 to 3 years and then increasing with age until around 10 years and remaining constant through the teenage years. Administration errors increased with patient age, with no association from 0 to around 8 years and then a steady rise with increasing age (P = .03). The association differed by route: linear for oral, no association for intravenous infusions, and U-shaped for intravenous injections. CONCLUSIONS: Older age is an unrecognized risk factor for medication error on general wards in pediatric hospitals. Contributors to risk may be the clinical profiles of these older children or the general level of attention paid to medication practices for this group. Further investigation may allow the design of more targeted interventions to reduce errors.

Exploring the challenges faced by foundation doctors when prescribing high risk medicines safely during the on-call period: A qualitative study.

AIMS: Errors with prescribing high-risk medicines (HRMs) have a greater propensity to cause harm than with non-HRMs. Prescribing errors arise due to multiple factors and it can be particularly challenging for junior doctors to prescribe safely during the on-call period. Knowledge regarding the challenges of prescribing HRM during the on-call period would be useful to target preventative interventions. The aim of this study was to explore the challenges encountered by foundation doctors (doctors who have graduated medical school within the last 2 years) when prescribing specific HRMs (anticoagulants, insulin and opioids) safely during the on-call period. METHODS: Six focus groups exploring the challenges of prescribing HRMs safely during the on-call period were conducted, 3 with foundation year 1 and 3 with foundation year 2 doctors from across 3 different hospitals. A thematic framework analysis based on the London Protocol was conducted. RESULTS: Doctors described multiple challenges to prescribing HRMs safely during the on-call period including a lack of prescribing support, nursing pressure, complex prescribing tasks, unknown patients as well as individual factors such as lack of knowledge and tiredness. Many of these factors exist to some extent during the day, yet the nature of the on-call period as a fast-paced environment heightened the challenges that prescribers faced. CONCLUSION: There are multiple challenges experienced by foundation doctors when prescribing HRMs during the on-call period. The potentially devastating consequences of errors with HRMs means that closer attention and more concern from healthcare professionals, researchers and policymakers is required to improve safe prescribing of HRMs in hospitals.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Experiences from the initial 3 years of introducing the British Pharmacological Society and UK Medical Schools Council Prescribing Safety Assessment for Danish junior doctors.

AIMS: The British Pharmacological Society and UK Medical Schools Council Prescription Safety Assessment (BPS/MSC PSA) is an electronic platform developed for assessing the prescription skills of medical students. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of the BPS/MSC PSA in addressing prescribing competencies among junior doctors in a hospital setting. METHODS: The Department of Clinical Pharmacology at Odense University Hospital established a Danish translated programme using the BPS/MSC PSA platform. We launched a formal 3-year programme in 2021, potentially assessing all first-year doctors at Odense University Hospital and Esbjerg Regional Hospital. Participation was followed by a survey. RESULTS: During the period of 2021 to 2023 n = 364 doctors were invited, from which n = 246 participated. The compliance rate increased from 38% in 2021 to 88% in 2023. The mean assessment score (points normalized to percentage) across n = 246 participants was 71%, and 94% achieved a score of at least 50%. A subset of participants responded to the survey, with the majority of those completing the questionnaire indicating that the purpose of the assessment was clear. The items related to difficulty and number of questions received comparable evaluations, and most respondents found the questions clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to translate and implement the BPS/MSC PSA in a Danish hospital setting. The programme provides insight into the prescribing competencies of junior doctors and the participants are generally positive.

The Acute Kidney Intervention and Pharmacotherapy (AKIP) List: Standardized List of Medications That Are Renally Eliminated and Nephrotoxic in the Acutely Ill.

The objective of this project was to develop a standardized list of renally eliminated and potentially nephrotoxic drugs that will help inform initiatives to improve medication safety. Several available lists of medications from the published literature including original research articles and reviews, and from regulatory agencies, tertiary references, and clinical decision support systems were compiled, consolidated, and compared. Only systemically administered medications were included. Medication combinations were included if at least 1 active ingredient was considered renally dosed or potentially nephrotoxic. The medication list was reviewed for completeness and clinical appropriateness by a multidisciplinary team of individuals with expertise in critical care, nephrology, and pharmacy. An initial list of renally dosed and nephrotoxic drugs was created. After reconciliation and consensus from clinical experts, a standardized list of 681 drugs is proposed. The proposed evidence-based standardized list of renally dosed and potentially nephrotoxic drugs will be useful to harmonize epidemiologic and medication quality improvement studies. In addition, the list can be used for clinical purposes with surveillance in nephrotoxin stewardship programs. We suggest an iterative re-evaluation of the list with emerging literature and new medications on an approximately annual basis.

Estimating the impact of label design on reducing the risk of medication errors by applying HEART in drug administration.

Medication errors are one of the biggest problems in healthcare. The medicines' poor labelling design (i.e. look-alike labels) is a well-recognised risk for potential confusion, wrong administration, and patient damage. Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) encourages the human-centred design of system elements, which might reduce medication errors and improve people's well-being and system performance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is twofold: (i) to use a human reliability analysis technique to evaluate a medication administration task within a simulated scenario of a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and (ii) to estimate the impact of a human-centred design (HCD) label in medication administration compared to a look-alike (LA) label. METHOD: This paper used a modified version of the human error assessment and reduction technique (HEART) to analyse a medication administration task in a simulated NICU scenario. The modified technique involved expert nurses quantifying the likelihood of unreliability of a task and rating the conditions, including medicine labels, which most affect the successful completion of the task. RESULTS: Findings suggest that error producing conditions (EPCs), such as a shortage of time available for error detection and correction, no independent checking of output, and distractions, might increase human error probability (HEP) in administering medications. Results also showed that the assessed HEP and the relative percentage of contribution to unreliability reduced by more than 40% when the HCD label was evaluated compared to the LA label. CONCLUSION: Including labelling design based on HFE might help increase human reliability when administering medications under critical conditions.

Descriptive analysis on disproportionate medication errors and associated patient characteristics in the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors (MEs) are a major public health concern which can cause harm and financial burden within the healthcare system. Characterizing MEs is crucial to develop strategies to mitigate MEs in the future. OBJECTIVES: To characterize ME-associated reports, and investigate signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) on MEs in the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: FAERS data from 2004 to 2020 was used. ME reports were identified with the narrow Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities® (MedDRA®) Query (SMQ) for MEs. Drug names were converted to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification. SDRs were investigated using the reporting odds ratio (ROR). RESULTS: In total 488 470 ME reports were identified, mostly (59%) submitted by consumers and mainly (55%) associated with females. Median age at time of ME was 57 years (interquartile range: 37-70 years). Approximately 1 out of 3 reports stated a serious health outcome. The most prevalent reported drug class was "antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents" (25%). The most common ME type was "incorrect dose administered" (9%). Of the 1659 SDRs obtained, adalimumab was the most common drug associated with MEs, noting a ROR of 1.22 (95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.24). CONCLUSION: This study offers a first of its kind characterization of MEs as reported to FAERS. Reported MEs are frequent and may be associated with serious health outcomes. This FAERS data provides insights on ME prevention and offers possibilities for additional in-depth analyses.

Medication-related incidents in acute care hospitals among different age groups: An analysis of national patient safety report data.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to perform a nationwide analysis of medication errors (MEs) from hospitals using national reporting system data and to compare the ME patterns among different age groups. METHODS: We analyzed medication-related incidents in acute care hospitals reported to the Korean Patient Safety Reporting and Learning System (KOPS), which is a patient safety reporting system, from July 2016 to December 2020. The stages of the medication use process, type of errors, medication class involved in MEs, and degree of harm were analyzed. RESULTS: Among a total of 5071 medication-related incidents, 37.7% (1911 cases) were incidents that caused patient harm and 1.2% caused long-term, permanent, and fatal harm. The proportion of medication-related incidents that resulted in harm was the highest among the <1-year-old age group (67 cases, 51.5%), followed by the elderly (≥ 65 years) (828 cases, 40.9%). The cases leading to patient death were most frequently reported in patients aged ≥65 years. Medication-related incidents occurred mainly in the administration stage (2954 cases, 58.3%), and wrong dose was the most frequently reported ME type. The most prevalent medication class occurring in the 20-64-year age group (256 cases, 11.7%) was 'antibacterials for systemic use', whereas 'contrast media' (236 cases, 11.6%) and 'blood substitutes and perfusion solutions' (98 cases, 19.3%) were the most prevalent drug classes in the ≥65- and <20-year-old age groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to establish guidelines for the prevention of medication-related incidents according to the medication use process and patient age group.

Accuracy of liquid drug dose measurements using different tools by caregivers: a prospective observational study.

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of liquid drug dose measurements made by caregivers and explore the factors influencing these measurements. Caregivers (n = 176) of children aged less than 8 years, who were treated at the pediatric clinic of a university hospital in Turkey between July and October 2019, were eligible to participate in this study. The caregivers' ability to accurately measure a 2.5-mL dose of medication was observed using standardized measurement instruments, including 15-mL and 30-mL dosing cups, a 3-mL dropper, a 5-mL dose spoon, and a 5-mL oral syringe. A comparison was made with the reference weight determined for the 2.5-mL dose to calculate the margin of error. A dose of ± 20% of the reference value was considered a clinically significant error. The chi-square test was used to examine differences in dose error rates concerning individual characteristics. Caregivers exhibited a dosing error rate exceeding 20%. Specifically, 43% of the errors occurred when using 15-mL cups, 37% with 30-mL cups, 22% with 3-mL droppers, 4.5% with 5-mL spoons, and 4% with 5-mL syringes. In cases where errors were under 20%, the rates were as follows: 1.1% with 15-mL cups, 2.8% with 30-mL cups, 19% with 3-mL droppers, 3.4% with 5-mL spoons, and 4% with 5-mL syringes. The dosing errors were not affected by the role and health literacy level of caregivers, regardless of the type of dosing tool they used (all p values > 0.05). The study found that oral syringes and dosing spoons had the lowest error rates, whereas dosing cups had the highest error rates.  Conclusion: Healthcare providers in family health centers and pediatric clinics should educate caregivers about proper drug administration with oral syringes and dosing spoons, even if dosing cups are included. What is Known: • Dose calculation errors and incorrect measurement tools are the leading factors causing errors. • Liquid medicine bottles are still often accompanied by dosing cups as measuring instruments. • Both the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommend that parents use standard measuring instruments such as oral syringes, droppers, and measuring spoons instead of kitchen spoons for administering the correct dose to children. What is New: • The measuring tool with the maximum errors was the dosing cup, whereas oral syringes and dosing spoons were more accurate. • Individual administering medication at home and the health literacy level had no effect on the accuracy of dose measurement. • Pediatric nurses, in particular, should incorporate safe liquid medication measurement tools into parental education.

Drug administration errors among anaesthesia providers in South Africa: a cross-sectional descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Drug administration errors (DAEs) in anaesthesia are common, the aetiology multifactorial and though mostly inconsequential, some lead to substantial harm. The extend of DAEs remain poorly quantified and effective implementation of prevention strategies sparse. METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using a peer-reviewed survey questionnaire, circulated to 2217 anaesthetists via a national communication platform. The aim was to determine the self-reported frequency, nature, contributing factors and reporting patterns of DAEs among anaesthesia providers in South Africa. RESULTS: Our cohort had a response rate was 18.9%, with 420 individuals populating the questionnaire. 92.5% of surveyed participants have made a DAE and 89.2% a near-miss. Incorrect route of administration, potentially resulting in serious harm, accounted for 8.2% (n = 23/N = 279) of these errors. DAEs mostly reported in cases involving adult patients (80.5%, n = 243/N = 302), receiving a general anaesthetic (71.8%, n = 216/N = 301), where the drug-administrator prepared the drugs themselves (78.7%, n = 218/N = 277), during normal daytime hours (69.9%, n = 202/N = 289) with good lightning conditions (93.0%, n = 265/N = 285). 26% (n = 80/N = 305) of DAEs involved ampoule misidentification, whilst syringe identification error reported in 51.6% (n = 150/N = 291) of cases. DAEs are often not reported (40.3%, n = 114/N = 283), with knowledge of correct reporting procedures lacking. 70.5% (n = 198/N = 281) of DAEs were never discussed with the patient. CONCLUSIONS: DAEs in anaesthesia remain prevalent. Known error traps continue to drive these incidents. Implementation of system based preventative strategies are paramount to guard against human error. Efforts should be made to encourage scrupulous reporting and training of anaesthesia providers, with the aim of rendering them proficient and resilient to handle these events.

Analysis of pharmaceutical interventions in chemotherapy prescriptions of adult and pediatric patients at an oncology reference institute.

Chemotherapy, one of the primary cancer treatments, has a high risk of causing significant harm in cases of its misuse. Pharmaceutical intervention is one of the strategies used to prevent medication errors from reaching the patient by identifying drug-related problems or other discrepancies related to patient data or medical progress. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the profile of the pharmaceutical intervention made in chemotherapy prescriptions for adult and pediatric patients in order to measure its impact on patient safety. A retrospective cross-sectional and observational study was conducted at a reference center for cancer treatment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Pharmaceutical interventions performed in chemotherapy prescriptions from January to October 2022 were quantified, classified, and analyzed by their type, most common medicine, and acceptability. From the patients treated in the period, 220 (14.8%) adults and 64 (23.4%) children and teenagers received at least one pharmaceutical intervention. The most common types for adults were dose adjustments: overdose (22.5%) and underdose (22.5%). However, in pediatry, incompleteness of supporting drug protocol (22.1%) was the most registered. The most common medicines involved in pharmaceutical intervention were carboplatin (for adults) and electrolytes/hydration (for pediatric patients). Pharmaceutical intervention acceptability by prescriptors was very similar, reaching 80.4% for adults and 77.9% for pediatrics. The pharmaceutical intervention profile was quite distinct by virtue of the singularities of each population. The pharmacists' role was shown to be paramount in intercepting medication errors in the prescription of chemotherapy protocols, contributing to patient safety.

Study to evaluate awareness about medication errors and impact of an educational intervention among healthcare personnel in a cancer hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Medication errors (MEs) are preventable incidents that can result in harm to patients. Therefore, it is essential for healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be well-informed about MEs. This study aims to assess the awareness levels of HCPs and the impact of educational intervention on their understanding of MEs. METHODS: Responses to a 17-question structured, self-administered questionnaire assessing the awareness of HCPs regarding fundamental aspects of MEs, ME reporting systems, and their ability to make recommendations for improving the system for handling the MEs were collected both before and after two weeks of educational intervention administration. RESULTS: Of a total of 114 HCPs who initially participated in the study, six dropped following the intervention. The awareness regarding the Class A questionnaire was good in most physicians (60%), nurses (60%), and pharmacists (57%) before the intervention, which improved postintervention, with physicians (80%), nurses (32%), and pharmacists (78%) demonstrating excellent awareness. The awareness level in the Class B questionnaire was also improved to excellent in most physicians (70%), pharmacists (85%), and nurses (85%) following the intervention, while it was excellent only in 50%, 35%, and 1% of physicians, pharmacists, and nurses, respectively, preintervention. In the Class C questionnaire, most physicians (40%) and nurses (60%) had good awareness, while pharmacists (35%) demonstrated excellent awareness preintervention. Postintervention, most physicians (70%), nurses (77%), and pharmacists (64%) exhibited excellent awareness. CONCLUSION: Most oncology practice HCPs demonstrate a good to average level of awareness regarding MEs. Clinical pharmacists' educational interventions can significantly enhance awareness among HCPs concerning MEs.

Does circle priming improve smart infusion pump and electronic health record interoperability for chemotherapy in a pediatric hematology/oncology setting?

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this project was to assess the percentage of interoperability compliance within our pediatric hematology/oncology patient care areas for intravenous chemotherapy medications before and after the implementation of circle priming. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective quality improvement project at an inpatient pediatric hematology/oncology floor and outpatient pediatric infusion center before and after implementation of circle priming. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in percent interoperability compliance for the inpatient pediatric hematology/oncology floor from 4.1% prior to implementation of circle priming to 35.6% after (odds ratio 13.1 (95% CI, 3.96-43.1), p < 0.001), as well as for the outpatient pediatric infusion center from 18.5% to 47.3%, respectively (odds ratio 3.9 (95% CI, 2.7-5.9), p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of circle priming has significantly increased the percentage of interoperability compliance for intravenous chemotherapy medications in our pediatric hematology/oncology patient care areas.

Norepinephrine Salt Formulations and Risk of Therapeutic Error: Results of a National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Norepinephrine is available commercially in solution containing its salt (eg, tartrate), but only the base form (ie, norepinephrine base) is active pharmacologically. Unfortunately, the outer label of drug packages frequently reports the dosage of norepinephrine as a salt, which can lead potentially to therapeutic errors when prescribing norepinephrine. We performed a survey to assess the level of awareness of this issue. DESIGN: National survey. SETTING: Acute care units of Italian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Acute care physicians and nurses. INTERVENTIONS: A 15-item online survey was emailed to 305 critical care practitioners in Italy. Questions included information on the participants' background, methods of diluting norepinephrine, interpretation of recommended doses from guidelines, and a sample case related to the preparation and administration of the drug. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We collected 106 responses from 54 hospitals. All hospitals used norepinephrine bitartrate salt. Of the participants, 53% responded that the guidelines express norepinephrine dosages as a salt, 23% as the base form, and 24% were unsure or unaware about it. The simulated patient-dose calculation was resolved in 81% of cases with an incorrect calculation referring to the norepinephrine salt and only in 19% referring to the norepinephrine base. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in dosage management of norepinephrine across different hospital units, as well as a lack of knowledge regarding the salt-to-base ratio. Scientific publications (eg, guidelines) should specify whether they are referring to the base or salt form of norepinephrine. The adoption of different labeling and national standards for dilution may decrease the risk of therapeutic errors.

Unveiling the factors influencing public knowledge and behaviours towards medication errors in Jordan: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are preventable incidents resulting from improper use of drugs that may cause harm to patients. They thus endanger patient safety and offer a challenge to the efficiency and efficacy of the healthcare system. Both healthcare professionals and patients may commit medication errors. METHODS AND OBJECTIVES: A cross-sectional, observational study was designed using a self-developed, self-administered online questionnaire. A sample was collected using convenience sampling followed by snowball sampling. Adult participants from the general population were recruited regardless of age, gender, area of residence, medical history, or educational background in order to explore their practice, experience, knowledge, and fear of medication error, and their understanding of this drug-related problem. RESULTS: Of the 764 participants who agreed to complete the questionnaire, 511 (66.9%) were females and 295 (38.6%) had a medical background. One-fifth of participants had experienced medication errors, with 37.7% of this segment reporting these medication errors. More than half of all medication errors (84, 57.5%) were minor and thus did not require any intervention. The average anxiety score for all attributes was 21.2 (The highest possible mean was 36, and the lowest possible was 0). The highest level of anxiety was seen regarding the risk of experiencing drug-drug interactions and the lowest levels were around drug costs and shortages. Being female, having no medical background, and having experience with medication errors were the main predictors of high anxiety scores. Most participants (between 67% and 92%) were able to recognise medication errors committed by doctors or pharmacists. However, only 21.2 to 27.5% of participants could recognise medication errors committed by patients. Having a medical background was the strongest predictor of knowledge in this study (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study revealed that the prevalence of self-reported medication errors was significantly high in Jordan, some of which resulted in serious outcomes such as lasting impairment, though most were minor. Raising awareness about medication errors and implementing preventive measures is thus critical, and further collaboration between healthcare providers and policymakers is essential to educate patients and establish effective safety protocols.

Designing a tool ensuring older patients the right medication at the right time after discharge from hospital- the first step in a participatory design process.

BACKGROUND: On average, older patients use five or more medications daily, increasing the risk of adverse drug reactions, interactions, or medication errors. Healthcare sector transitions increase the risk of information loss, misunderstandings, unclear treatment responsibilities, and medication errors. Therefore, it is crucial to identify possible solutions to decrease these risks. Patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals were asked to design the solution they need. METHODS: We conducted a participatory design approach to collect information from patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. The informants were asked to design their take on a tool ensuring that patients received the correct medication after discharge from the hospital. We included two patients using five or more medications daily, one relative, three general practitioners, four nurses from different healthcare sectors, two hospital physicians, and three pharmacists. RESULTS: The patients' solution was a physical location providing a medication overview, including side effects and interactions. Healthcare professionals suggested different solutions, including targeted and timely information that provided an overview of the patient's diagnoses, treatment and medication. The common themes identified across all sub-groups were: (1) Overview of medications, side effects, and diagnoses, (2) Sharing knowledge among healthcare professionals, (3) Timely discharge letters, (4) Does the shared medication record and existing communication platforms provide relevant information to the patient or healthcare professional? CONCLUSION: All study participants describe the need for a more concise, relevant overview of information. This study describes elements for further elaboration in future participatory design processes aimed at creating a tool to ensure older patients receive the correct medication at the correct time.

How intervention studies measure the effectiveness of medication safety-related clinical decision support systems in primary and long-term care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors and associated adverse drug events (ADE) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In recent years, the prevention of medication errors has become a high priority in healthcare systems. In order to improve medication safety, computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly being integrated into the medication process. Accordingly, a growing number of studies have investigated the medication safety-related effectiveness of CDSS. However, the outcome measures used are heterogeneous, leading to unclear evidence. The primary aim of this study is to summarize and categorize the outcomes used in interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS on medication safety in primary and long-term care. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS targeting medication safety and patient-related outcomes. We extracted methodological characteristics, outcomes and empirical findings from the included studies. Outcomes were assigned to three main categories: process-related, harm-related, and cost-related. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (n = 31) used process-related outcomes, followed by harm-related outcomes (n = 11). Only three studies used cost-related outcomes. Most studies used outcomes from only one category and no study used outcomes from all three categories. The definition and operationalization of outcomes varied widely between the included studies, even within outcome categories. Overall, evidence on CDSS effectiveness was mixed. A significant intervention effect was demonstrated by nine of fifteen studies with process-related primary outcomes (60%) but only one out of five studies with harm-related primary outcomes (20%). The included studies faced a number of methodological problems that limit the comparability and generalizability of their results. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of CDSS is currently inconclusive due in part to inconsistent outcome definitions and methodological problems in the literature. Additional high-quality studies are therefore needed to provide a comprehensive account of CDSS effectiveness. These studies should follow established methodological guidelines and recommendations and use a comprehensive set of harm-, process- and cost-related outcomes with agreed-upon and consistent definitions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023464746.

How much time do emergency department physicians spend on medication-related tasks? A time- and-motion study.

BACKGROUND: Medication-related problems are an important cause of emergency department (ED) visits, and medication errors are reported in up to 60% of ED patients. Procedures such as medication reconciliation and medication review can identify and prevent medication-related problems and medication errors. However, this work is often time-consuming. In EDs without pharmacists, medication reconciliation is the physician's responsibility, in addition to the primary assignments of examining and diagnosing the patient. The aim of this study was to identify how much time ED physicians spend on medication-related tasks when no pharmacists are present in the EDs. METHODS: An observational time-and-motion study of physicians in three EDs in Northern Norway was conducted using Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) to collect and time-stamp data. Observations were conducted in predefined two-hour observation sessions with a 1:1 relationship between observer and participant, during Monday to Friday between 8 am and 8 pm, from November 2020 to October 2021. RESULTS: In total, 386 h of observations were collected during 225 observation sessions. A total of 8.7% of the physicians' work time was spent on medication-related tasks, of which most time was spent on oral communication about medications with other physicians (3.0%) and medication-related documentation (3.2%). Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on medication reconciliation tasks, which includes retrieving medication-related information directly from the patient, reading/retrieving written medication-related information, and medication-related documentation. Physicians spent 85.6% of the observed time on non-medication-related clinical or administrative tasks, and the remaining time was spent standby or moving between tasks. CONCLUSION: In three Norwegian EDs, physicians spent 8.7% of their work time on medication-related tasks, and 85.6% on other clinical or administrative tasks. Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on tasks related to medication reconciliation. We worry that patient safety related tasks in the EDs receive little attention. Allocating dedicated resources like pharmacists to contribute with medication-related tasks could benefit both physicians and patients.

A cross exploratory analysis between nursing working conditions and the occurrence of errors in the northeast region of Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Analyze and verify the association between working conditions and the occurrence of errors in nursing work. BACKGROUND: Many of the known errors in nursing are based on the structural failure of the complex health service system. Our study addresses the question "Is there an association between errors made by nursing workers and working conditions?" METHODS: The study was carried out through a cross-sectional exploratory analysis of 19 ethical-disciplinary processes focused on errors made by nursing workers. The articles were processed, judged, and archived at the Regional Nursing Councils of the Northeast Region of Brazil from 2000 to 2018. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to verify the relationship between the variables through multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The analyzes show that working conditions can interfere at occurrence in error. This increases the chance of an "inconsequential" error occurring for the patient in poor/very poor working conditions. The most serious errors, "with consequences irreversible" for the patient, only occur from more severe working conditions. Adversely, it was found that there is no statistically significant difference in the frequency of errors in hospitals (33.33 %) compared to "other places" (28.58 %) when these occurred in poor working conditions. When conducting the incident in poor working conditions, there was a minimum of 52 % protection OR = 0.48 % [0.16; 11.80]; (1-0.48)) against these errors in general in the nursing area. CONCLUSION: The strong association was exposed in working conditions classified as bad/very bad/very bad, resulting in the most serious errors and with irreversible consequences for patients. However, a level of protection for different types of workers was noticed in the field, which shows that there is hope that if the work environment changes with more organization, management, and standards of care, we can prevent future errors.

Perceptions on Medication Administration Errors (MAEs) among nurses at a tertiary government hospital.

AIM: To identify the nurses' perceptions on the occurrence of Medication Administration Errors (MAEs) and barriers to reporting using the MAE Reporting Survey. BACKGROUND: MAEs is a serious public health threat that causes patient injury, death, and results to expensive health care. METHODS: Descriptive statistical analysis. RESULTS: The most frequent reasons for MAEs according to the nurses were physicians' medication orders are not legible (4.67 ± 1.21) and unit staffing levels are inadequate (4.63 ± 1.45). The most frequent reason for unreported MAEs were when med errors occur, nursing administration focuses on the individual rather than looking at the systems as a potential cause of the error (4.95 ± 4.33) and nurses could be blamed if something happens to the patient as a result of the medication error (4.29 ± 1.48). The highest prevalent non-IV related MAEs included wrong time of administration (M = 3.02 ± 2.37) and medication administered after the order to discontinue has been written (M = 2.60 ± 2.11), both with 0-20 % of reported non-IV MAEs. The highest prevalent IV related MAEs included wrong time of administration (M = 2.76 ± 2.29) and medication administered after the order to discontinue has been written (M = 2.45 ± 2.01). More than half (n = 95, % = 54.29) of the respondents stated that 0-20 % of all types of medication errors, including IV and non-IV medication errors are reported. CONCLUSIONS: The findings supported the notion that nurses perceive low percentages of MAEs reporting.