Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains.

BACKGROUND: Drug name confusion is a common type of medication error and a persistent threat to patient safety. In the USA, roughly one per thousand prescriptions results in the wrong drug being filled, and most of these errors involve drug names that look or sound alike. Prior to approval, drug names undergo a variety of tests to assess their potential for confusability, but none of these preapproval tests has been shown to predict real-world error rates. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a study to assess the association between error rates in laboratory-based tests of drug name memory and perception and real-world drug name confusion error rates. METHODS: Eighty participants, comprising doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians and lay people, completed a battery of laboratory tests assessing visual perception, auditory perception and short-term memory of look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs (eg, hydroxyzine/hydralazine). RESULTS: Laboratory test error rates (and other metrics) significantly predicted real-world error rates obtained from a large, outpatient pharmacy chain, with the best-fitting model accounting for 37% of the variance in real-world error rates. Cross-validation analyses confirmed these results, showing that the laboratory tests also predicted errors from a second pharmacy chain, with 45% of the variance being explained by the laboratory test data. CONCLUSIONS: Across two distinct pharmacy chains, there is a strong and significant association between drug name confusion error rates observed in the real world and those observed in laboratory-based tests of memory and perception. Regulators and drug companies seeking a validated preapproval method for identifying confusing drug names ought to consider using these simple tests. By using a standard battery of memory and perception tests, it should be possible to reduce the number of confusing look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs that reach the market, which will help protect patients from potentially harmful medication errors.

Characterizing the pain score trajectories of hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Pain care for hospitalized patients is often suboptimal. Representing pain scores as a graphical trajectory may provide insights into the understanding and treatment of pain. We describe a 1-year, retrospective, observational study to characterize pain trajectories of hospitalized adults during the first 48 hours after admission at an urban academic medical center. Using a subgroup of patients who presented with significant pain (pain score >4; n = 7762 encounters), we characterized pain trajectories and measured area under the curve, slope of the trajectory for the first 2 hours after admission, and pain intensity at plateau. We used mixed-effects regression to assess the association between pain score and sociodemographics (age, race, and gender), pain medication orders (opioids, nonopioids, and no medications), and medical service (obstetrics, psychiatry, surgery, sickle cell, intensive care unit, and medicine). K-means clustering was used to identify patient subgroups with similar trajectories. Trajectories showed differences based on race, gender, service, and initial pain score. Patients presumed to have dissimilar pain experiences (eg, sickle vs obstetrical) had markedly different pain trajectories. Patients with higher initial pain had a more rapid reduction during their first 2 hours of treatment. Pain reduction achieved in the 48 hours after admission was approximately 50% of the initial pain, regardless of the initial pain. Most patients' pain failed to fully resolve, plateauing at a pain score of 4 or greater. Visualizing pain scores as graphical trajectories illustrates the dynamic variability in pain, highlighting pain responses over a period of observation, and may yield new insights for quality improvement and research.

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices and Poison Control Centers: Collaborating to Prevent Medication Errors and Unintentional Poisonings.

This article provides an overview on the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the only independent nonprofit organization in the USA devoted to the prevention of medication errors. ISMP developed the national Medication Errors Reporting Program (MERP) and investigates and analyzes errors in order to formulate recommendations to prevent further occurrences. ISMP works closely with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), drug manufacturers, professional organizations, and others to promote changes in package design, practice standards, and healthcare practitioner and consumer education. By collaborating with ISMP to share and disseminate information, Poison Control centers, emergency departments, and toxicologists can help decrease unintentional and accidental poisonings.

Establishing an international baseline for medication safety in oncology: Findings from the 2012 ISMP International Medication Safety Self Assessment® for Oncology.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada (ISMP Canada) collaborated with an international panel of oncology practitioners to develop the ISMP International Medication Safety Self Assessment® for Oncology. This self-assessment was designed to assist oncology practitioners in hospitals, ambulatory care centers, and office practice settings throughout the world to evaluate safe practices related to medication use in the oncology setting and to identify opportunities for improvement. INSTRUMENT DESIGN: The self-assessment consists of 175 items organized into 10 key elements subdivided into 18 core characteristics of safe medication use. Assessment results were submitted via a secure online portal. The online program allows participants to print and graph their results and to compare their findings with those of similar organizations both nationally and internationally. METHODS: Complimentary access to the self-assessment was made available for a seven-month "snapshot" period in 2012. RESULTS: A total of 352 organizations from 13 countries submitted assessment results. Key opportunities for improvement were identified in five areas: implementation of the World Health Organization recommendations for management of vinCRIStine and other vinca alkaloids, safe management of oral chemotherapy, labeling of distal ends of intravenous tubing, implementation of technology-based safeguards, and patient education. CONCLUSIONS: This international snapshot provides important data about the level of implementation of system-based safeguards in oncology practice, key improvement opportunities, and represents a baseline for future improvement efforts. A collaborative approach to identifying vulnerabilities and developing solutions for safe medication use in oncology will enhance the care of patients with cancer internationally.

Oncology medication safety: a 3D status report 2008.

BACKGROUND: The safe use of medications is a major concern in oncology practice. Three organizations collaborated on a survey to determine if practitioners had implemented current recommended safe practices for IV vincristine administration, general oncology safe practices, and safe practices for oral chemotherapy. METHODS: A survey was distributed to members of the Hematology Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the International Society of Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) using Survey Monkey. The Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) also solicited readers of its Medication Safety Alert! to respond to the survey. A comparison to results from a survey conducted by ISMP in 2006 on safe practices for IV vincristine was also conducted. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were aware of the WHO recommendations for IV vincristine, although the rate of implementation of the guidelines ranged from 24.1 to 53.6%. When compared to the ISMP 2006 survey there was a 25.8-37.4% improvement in following many of the safe practice guidelines. Administering IV vincristine via a minibag showed the lowest rate of adoption (less than 40%). Of the 35 survey items on general chemotherapy safety strategies, 80% of respondents had implemented at least 21 items in the survey. Overall 32.4% of respondents did not consider oral chemotherapy as requiring the same safety concerns as parenteral therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey will provide a new baseline for the adoption rate of safe medication practice recommendations related to oncology. Further work on addressing barriers in adopting identified safe practice recommendations needs to be conducted.

Using the ISMP Medication Safety Self-Assessment to improve medication use processes.

BACKGROUND: The 194-item Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Medication Safety Self-Assessment for hospitals is being used by a 21-hospital collaborative as a framework for understanding, evaluating, and systematically implementing medication use system safety improvements. METHODS: The results of the self-assessment were used to prioritize and organize the review of medication use processes, in which each self-assessment-defined "representative characteristic" is reviewed in detail, and "best implementation practices" for the characteristic are established. The collaborative concurrently identifies educational needs and develops tools to assist organizations in implementing improvements. RESULTS: By December 2002 participating organizations had implemented a wide variety of medication safety improvements. Collaborative member scores for the self-assessment increased approximately 20% during the initial assessment when the self-assessment was repeated by members in the second quarter of 2002. SUMMARY: Participant progress in improving medication safety practices is supportive of collaborative methods and the value of completing the ISMP self-assessment, expanding on the knowledge gained, developing effective implementation tools, and systematically applying lessons learned.