Interventions for reducing medication errors in children in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitalised patients are affected by medication errors (MEs) that may cause discomfort, harm and even death. Children are at especially high risk of harm as the result of MEs because such errors are potentially more hazardous to them than to adults. Until now, interventions to reduce MEs have led to only limited improvements. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing MEs and related harm in hospitalised children. SEARCH METHODS: The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following sources for primary studies: The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and the Health Technology Assessments (HTA) database; MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, Web of Science (citation indexes and conference proceedings) and the EPOC Register of Studies. Related reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Review authors searched grey literature sources and trial registries. They handsearched selected journals, contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. They conducted searches in November 2013 and November 2014. They applied neither language nor date limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series investigating interventions to improve medication safety in hospitalised children (≤ 18 years). Participants were healthcare professionals authorised to prescribe, dispense or administer medications. Outcome measures included MEs, (potential) patient harm, resource utilisation and unintended consequences of the interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the EPOC data collection checklist. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence. We described results narratively and presented them using GRADE tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies describing five different interventions: participation of a clinical pharmacist in a clinical team (n = 2), introduction of a computerised physician order entry system (n = 2), implementation of a barcode medication administration system (n = 1), use of a structured prescribing form (n = 1) and implementation of a check and control checklist in combination with feedback (n = 1).Clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Although some interventions described in this review show a decrease in MEs, the results are not consistent, and none of the studies resulted in a significant reduction in patient harm. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality and strengfh of the evidence are low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on effective interventions to prevent MEs in a paediatric population in hospital is limited. Comparative studies with robust study designs are needed to investigate interventions including components that focus on specific paediatric safety issues.

The causes of prescribing errors in English general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Few detailed studies exist of the underlying causes of prescribing errors in the UK. AIM: To examine the causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practice and provide recommendations for how they may be overcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview and focus group study with purposive sampling of English general practices. METHOD: General practice staff from 15 general practices across three PCTs in England participated in a combination of semi-structured interviews (n = 34) and six focus groups (n = 46). Thematic analysis informed by Reason's Accident Causation Model was used. RESULTS: Seven categories of high-level error-producing conditions were identified: the prescriber, the patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system, and the primary-secondary care interface. These were broken down to reveal various error-producing conditions: the prescriber's therapeutic training, drug knowledge and experience, knowledge of the patient, perception of risk, and their physical and emotional health; the patient's characteristics and the complexity of the individual clinical case; the importance of feeling comfortable within the practice team was highlighted, as well as the safety implications of GPs signing prescriptions generated by nurses when they had not seen the patient for themselves; the working environment with its extensive workload, time pressures, and interruptions; and computer-related issues associated with mis-selecting drugs from electronic pick-lists and overriding alerts were all highlighted as possible causes of prescribing errors and were often interconnected. CONCLUSION: Complex underlying causes of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices were highlighted, several of which are amenable to intervention.

The prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practice: a retrospective case note review.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about prescribing errors in general practice, or the factors associated with error. AIM: To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective case-note review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12-month period to a 2% random sample of patients. Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. METHOD: A total of 6048 unique prescription items prescribed over the previous 12 months for 1777 patients were examined. The data were analysed by mixed effects logistic regression. The main outcome measures were prevalence of prescribing and monitoring errors, and severity of errors, using validated definitions. RESULTS: Prescribing and/or monitoring errors were detected in 4.9% (296/6048) of all prescription items (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4% to 5.5%). The vast majority of errors were of mild to moderate severity, with 0.2% (11/6048) of items having a severe error. After adjusting for covariates, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of prescribing and/or monitoring errors were: age <15 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.94, P = 0.006) or >64 years (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.04 to 2.73, P = 0.035), and higher numbers of unique medication items prescribed (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.19, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Prescribing and monitoring errors are common in English general practice, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Having identified the most common and important errors, and the factors associated with these, strategies to prevent future errors should be developed, based on the study findings.