Assessing the Impact of the Anesthesia Medication Template on Medication Errors During Anesthesia: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors continue to be a significant source of patient harm in the operating room with few concrete countermeasures. The organization and identification of medication syringes may have an impact on the commission of medication errors in anesthesia, so a team of physicians and designers at the University of Washington created the Anesthesia Medication Template (AMT) to define a formal way of organizing the anesthesia workspace. The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of the AMT to reduce perioperative medication errors by anesthesia providers. METHODS: This study evaluated the AMT in 2 phases: (1) 41 anesthesia providers administered medications in 2 prospective, randomized operating room simulations with or without the AMT, while medication errors were directly observed; and (2) around 200 providers prospectively self-reported medication errors from all anesthetizing locations during a 2-year period at Seattle Children's Hospital, an academic, pediatric medical center. RESULTS: In simulated emergencies, the odds of medication dosing errors using the AMT were 0.21 times the odds of medication dosing errors without AMT (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07, 0.66), controlling for scenario, session, training level, and years at training level. During the year after implementation of the AMT, the mean monthly error rate for all reported medication errors that reached patients decreased from 1.24 (95% CI, 0.85-1.79) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.39-1.09) errors per 1000 anesthetics. The mean monthly error rate of reported swap, preparation, miscalculation, and timing errors decreased from 0.97 (95% CI, 0.64-1.48) to 0.35 (95% CI, 0.17-0.70) errors per 1000 anesthetics. Medication errors that resulted in patient harm did not change after implementation of the AMT. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing medication organization with the AMT is an intuitive, low-cost strategy with the potential to improve patient safety through reducing medication errors by anesthesia providers.

Randomised trial comparing the recording ability of a novel, electronic emergency documentation system with the AHA paper cardiac arrest record.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of an electronic system created at the University of Washington to accurately document prerecorded VF and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest scenarios compared with the American Heart Association paper cardiac arrest record. METHODS: 16 anaesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to view one of two prerecorded, simulated VF and PEA scenarios and asked to document the event with either the paper or electronic system. Each subject then repeated the process with the other video and documentation method. Five types of documentation errors were defined: (1) omission, (2) specification, (3) timing, (4) commission and (5) noise. The mean difference in errors between the paper and electronic methods was analysed using a single factor repeated measures ANOVA model. RESULTS: Compared with paper records, the electronic system omitted 6.3 fewer events (95% CI -10.1 to -2.5, p=0.003), which represents a 28% reduction in omission errors. Users recorded 2.9 fewer noise items (95% CI -5.3 to -0.6, p=0.003) when compared with paper, representing a 36% decrease in redundant or irrelevant information. The rate of timing (Δ=-3.2, 95% CI -9.3 to 3.0, p=0.286) and commission (Δ=-4.4, 95% CI -9.4 to 0.5, p=0.075) errors were similar between the electronic system and paper, while the rate of specification errors were about a third lower for the electronic system when compared with the paper record (Δ=-3.2, 95% CI -6.3 to -0.2, p=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paper documentation, documentation with the electronic system captured 24% more critical information during a simulated medical emergency without loss in data quality.