Prevalence and determinants of medication administration errors in clinical wards: A two-centre prospective observational study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and determinants of medication administration errors (MAEs). BACKGROUND: Insight into determinants of MAEs is necessary to identify interventions to prevent MAEs. DESIGN: A prospective observational study in two Dutch hospitals, a university and teaching hospital. METHODS: Data were collected by observation. The primary outcome was the proportion of administrations with one or more MAEs. Secondary outcomes were the type, severity and determinants of MAEs. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used for determinant analysis. Reporting adheres to the STROBE guideline. RESULTS: MAEs occurred in 352 of 2576 medication administrations (13.7%). Of all MAEs (n = 380), the most prevalent types were omission (n = 87) and wrong medication handling (n = 75). Forty-five MAEs (11.8%) were potentially harmful. The pharmaceutical forms oral liquid (odds ratio [OR] 3.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-7.25), infusion (OR 1.73, CI 1.02-2.94), injection (OR 3.52, CI 2.00-6.21), ointment (OR 10.78, CI 2.10-55.26), suppository/enema (OR 6.39, CI 1.13-36.03) and miscellaneous (OR 6.17, CI 1.90-20.04) were more prone to MAEs compared to oral solid. MAEs were more likely to occur when medication was administered between 10 a.m.-2 p.m. (OR 1.91, CI 1.06-3.46) and 6 p.m.-7 a.m. (OR 1.88, CI 1.00-3.52) compared to 7 a.m.-10 a.m. and when administered by staff with higher professional education compared to staff with secondary vocational education (OR 1.68, CI 1.03-2.74). MAEs were less likely to occur in the teaching hospital (OR 0.17, CI 0.08-0.33). Day of the week, patient-to-nurse ratio, interruptions and other nurse characteristics (degree, experience, employment type) were not associated with MAEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a high MAE prevalence. Identified determinants suggest that focusing interventions on complex pharmaceutical forms and error-prone administration times may contribute to MAE reduction. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings of this study can be used to develop targeted interventions to improve patient safety.

Effect of automated unit dose dispensing with barcode scanning on medication administration errors: an uncontrolled before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND: Medication administration errors (MAEs) occur frequently in hospitals and may compromise patient safety. Preventive strategies are needed to reduce the risk of MAEs. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of central automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration on the prevalence of MAEs. Secondary aims were to assess the effect on the type and potential severity of MAEs. Furthermore, compliance with procedures regarding scanning of patient and medication barcodes and nursing staff satisfaction with the medication administration system were assessed. METHODS: We performed a prospective uncontrolled before-and-after study in six clinical wards in a Dutch university hospital from 2018 to 2020. MAE data were collected by observation. The primary outcome was the proportion of medication administrations with one or more MAEs. Secondary outcomes were the type and potential severity of MAEs, rates of compliance with patient identification and signing of administered medication by scanning and nursing staff satisfaction with the medication administration system. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used for the primary outcome to adjust for confounding and for clustering on nurse and patient level. RESULTS: One or more MAEs occurred in 291 of 1490 administrations (19.5%) pre-intervention and in 258 of 1630 administrations (15.8%) post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.96). The rate of omission fell from 4.6% to 2.0% and of wrong dose from 3.8% to 2.1%, whereas rates of other MAE types were similar. The rate of potentially harmful MAEs fell from 3.0% (n = 44) to 0.3% (n = 5). The rates of compliance with scanning of patient and medication barcode post-intervention were 13.6% and 55.9%, respectively.The median overall satisfaction score of the nurses with the medication administration system on a 100-point scale was 70 (interquartile range 63-75, n = 193) pre-intervention and 70 (interquartile range 60-78, n = 145) post-intervention (P = 0.626, Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSION: The implementation of central automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration was associated with a lower probability of MAEs, including potentially harmful errors, but more compliance with scanning procedures is needed. Nurses were moderately satisfied with the medication administration system, both before and after implementation. In conclusion, despite low compliance with scanning procedures, this study shows that this intervention contributes to the improvement of medication safety in hospitals.

Cost-effectiveness of central automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Central automated unit dose dispensing (cADD) with barcode-assisted medication administration (BCMA) has been shown to reduce medication administration errors (MAEs). Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cADD with BCMA compared to usual care. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective before-and-after effectiveness study in a Dutch university hospital. The primary effect measure was the difference between the rate of MAEs before and after implementation of cADD with BCMA, obtained by disguised observation in six clinical wards and subsequent extrapolation to the entire hospital. The cost-analysis was conducted from a hospital perspective with a 12-month incremental costing approach. The total costs covered the pharmaceutical service, nurse medication handling, wastage, and materials related to cADD. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as costs per avoided MAE, obtained by dividing the annual incremental costs by the number of avoided MAEs. The secondary outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as costs per avoided potentially harmful MAE (i.e. MAEs with the potential to cause harm). RESULTS: The intervention was associated with an absolute MAE reduction of 4.5% and a reduction of 2.7% for potentially harmful MAEs. Based on 2,260,870 administered medications in the entire hospital annually, a total of 102,210 MAEs and 59,830 potentially harmful MAEs were estimated to be avoided. The intervention was associated with an increased incremental cost of €1,808,600 annually. The cost-effectiveness ratio was €17.69 per avoided MAE and €30.23 per avoided potentially harmful MAE. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of cADD with BCMA was associated with a reduced rate of medication errors, including harmful ones, at higher overall costs. The costs per avoided error are relatively low, and therefore, this intervention could be an important strategy to improve patient safety in hospitals.

Evaluation of the importance of mixing during preparation of antibiotic infusions.

BACKGROUND: The mixing step after medication addition to the infusion bag is frequently omitted during the preparation of drug infusions. However, the importance of mixing when preparing antibiotic infusions is still unknown. METHODS: The primary aim of this study was to assess the importance of the mixing step by comparing the concentrations of unmixed antibiotic infusions (cefuroxime, flucloxacillin, meropenem, and vancomycin) with the declared concentration at regular intervals during infusion. The secondary aim was to compare concentrations between preparation sites (hospital pharmacy versus clinical ward). Infusion bags were run through electronic infusion pumps. For cefuroxime, flucloxacillin, and meropenem, samples were collected 1, 15, and 20 min after starting the administration (infusion duration: 30 min). For vancomycin, samples were collected after 1, 60, and 110 min (infusion duration: 120 min). Vancomycin concentrations were measured using the Architect c4000 analyser and other concentrations using a validated UPC2-MS-MS multimethod. RESULTS: The median concentrations of the four antibiotics were comparable to the declared concentration at all three time points. No significant differences were found between preparation sites. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous mixing occurred in the examined antibiotic solutions during normal handling.