RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Drug incompatibility, a significant subset of medication errors, threaten patient safety during the medication administration phase. Despite the undeniably high prevalence of drug incompatibility, it is currently poorly understood because previous studies are focused predominantly on intensive care unit (ICU) settings. To enhance patient safety, it is crucial to expand our understanding of this issue from a comprehensive viewpoint. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and mechanism of drug incompatibility by analysing hospital-wide prescription and administration data. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study, conducted at a tertiary academic hospital, included data extracted from the clinical data warehouse of the study institution on patients admitted between January 1, 2021, and May 31, 2021. Potential contacts in drug pairs (PCs) were identified using the study site clinical workflow. Drug incompatibility for each PC was determined by using a commercial drug incompatibility database, the Trissel's™ 2 Clinical Pharmaceutics Database (Trissel's 2 database). Drivers of drug incompatibility were identified, based on a descriptive analysis, after which, multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess the risk factors for experiencing one or more drug incompatibilities during admission. RESULTS: Among 30,359 patients (representing 40,061 hospitalisations), 24,270 patients (32,912 hospitalisations) with 764,501 drug prescriptions (1,001,685 IV administrations) were analysed, after checking for eligibility. Based on the rule for determining PCs, 5,813,794 cases of PCs were identified. Among these, 25,108 (0.4 %) cases were incompatible PCs: 391 (1.6 %) PCs occurred during the prescription process and 24,717 (98.4 %) PCs during the administration process. By classifying these results, we identified the following drivers contributing to drug incompatibility: incorrect order factor; incorrect administration factor; and lack of related research. In multivariate analysis, the risk of encountering incompatible PCs was higher for patients who were male, older, with longer lengths of stay, with higher comorbidity, and admitted to medical ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: We comprehensively described the current state of drug incompatibility by analysing hospital-wide drug prescription and administration data. The results showed that drug incompatibility frequently occurs in clinical settings.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Preparing appropriate red blood cells (RBCs) before surgery is crucial for improving both the efficacy of perioperative workflow and patient safety. In particular, thoracic surgery (TS) is a procedure that requires massive transfusion with high variability for each patient. Hence, the precise prediction of RBC requirements for individual patients is becoming increasingly important. This study aimed to 1) develop and validate a machine learning algorithm for personalized RBC predictions for TS patients and 2) assess the usability of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) integrating this artificial intelligence model. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent TS between January 2016 and October 2021 were included in this study. Multiple models were developed by employing both traditional statistical- and machine-learning approaches. The primary outcome evaluated the model's performance in predicting RBC requirements through root mean square error and adjusted R2. Surgeons and informaticians determined the precision MSBOS-Thoracic Surgery (pMSBOS-TS) algorithm through a consensus process. The usability of the pMSBOS-TS was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS) survey with 60 clinicians. RESULTS: We identified 7,843 cases (6,200 for training and 1,643 for test sets) of TSs. Among the models with variable performance indices, the extreme gradient boosting model was selected as the pMSBOS-TS algorithm. The pMSBOS-TS model showed statistically significant lower root mean square error (mean: 3.203 and 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.186-3.220) compared to the calculated Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedule (MSBOS) and a higher adjusted R2 (mean: 0.399 and 95% CI: 0.395-0.403) compared to the calculated MSBOS, while requiring approximately 200 fewer packs for RBC preparation compared to the calculated MSBOS. The SUS score of the pMSBOS-TS CDSS was 72.5 points, indicating good acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed the pMSBOS-TS capable of predicting personalized RBC transfusion requirements for perioperative patients undergoing TS.
RESUMO
This study charts the chronological developments of the three institutions that were established in South Korea for priority setting in health. In 2007, the Evidence-based Medicine Team and the Center for New Health Technology Assessment (CnHTA) were established and nested in the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). In December 2008, the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) was launched, to which the CnHTA was transferred in 2010. Since then, non-drug technologies have been reviewed by NECA and drugs have been reviewed by HIRA. Political debates about how to embrace expensive but important health technologies that were not on the benefits list led to the creation of the Participatory Priority Setting Committee (PPSC) in 2012. The PPSC, led by the general public, has played a key role in advancing the path toward universal health coverage by revitalizing the list of essential, yet previously overlooked, medical technologies. PPSC offers these technologies a second chance at coverage. HIRA and NECA served to strengthen evidence-based and efficiency-based decision-making in the health system via CnHTA, and PPSC served to strengthen social value-based decision making via priority setting in Korea. The reassessment by PPSC may be relevant in countries where the economy is growing and citizens want to rapidly expand the benefits list.