[Medication errors in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes: A prospective pilot study led in collaboration by regional vigilance and support structures]. / Erreurs médicamenteuses en Auvergne Rhône-Alpes : étude pilote descriptive collaborative entre structures régionales de vigilance et d'appui (SRVA).

Medication errors (ME) are frequently encountered and present at every step of the therapeutic process. This study's aims were to take stock of the ME reported to the region's pharmacovigilance (CRPV) and poison control centers (CAPTV) and to identify potential regional actions. A 2-months (January and February 2017) prospective gathering of the calls to the CAPTV regarding the ME and of the ME declarations to the region's CRPV (Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Lyon, Saint-Etienne) has been carried out. The place of occurrence, the event's description and its consequences and data regarding the patient were collected. In addition to that, the regional drug observatory OMEDIT analysis has allowed to determine the ME's types (REMED characterization, never event?) and to look for the results of a potential thorough analysis. The study reported 580 calls for 590 ME and 583 patients. ME mostly affected the ambulatory/domicile sector (76%), the medico-social sector (14%) and the healthcare facilities sector (7%). It usually was about dose errors, medication errors and patient errors with a different profile in each sector. The majority of errors (85%) occurred at the administration step. Almost all the observed ME were confirmed errors having reached the patient (99.5%) but only a few had serious consequences. One out of 5 ME was eligible for a thorough analysis but even less were subjected to that kind of analysis. The main never event concerned the unidose in the ambulatory sector. The health products involved were mostly a single medication (75%) and then the patient's full treatment (12%). The CRPV/CAPTV/OMEDIT's skills are complementary for the gathering, the analysis and the management of the ME. Training campaigns and support are to be considered for the professionals and especially within the medico-social facilities.

The cost-saving effect of centralized histological reviews with soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, GIST, and desmoid tumors: The experiences of the pathologists of the French Sarcoma Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the types of discordance occurring in the diagnosis of soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and desmoid tumors, as well as the economic impact of diagnostic discrepancies. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, multicenter analysis using prospectively implemented databases performed on a cohort of patients within the French RRePS network in 2010. Diagnoses were deemed to be discordant based on the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. Predictive factors of discordant diagnoses were explored. A decision tree was used to assess the expected costs of two strategies of disease management: one based on revised diagnoses after centralized histological review (option 1), the other on diagnoses without centralized review (option 2). Both were defined based on the patient and the disease characteristics, according to national or international guidelines. The time horizon was 12 months and the perspective of the French National Health Insurance (NHI) was retained. Costs were expressed in Euros for 2013. Sensitivity analyses were performed using low and high scenarios that included ± 20% estimates for cost. RESULTS: A total of 2,425 patients were included. Three hundred forty-one patients (14%) had received discordant diagnoses. These discordances were determined to mainly be benign tumors diagnosed as sarcomas (n = 124), or non-sarcoma malignant tumors diagnosed as sarcomas (n = 77). The probability of discordance was higher for a final diagnosis of desmoid tumors when compared to liposarcomas (odds ratio = 5.1; 95%CI [2.6-10.4]). The expected costs per patient for the base-case analysis (low- and high-case scenarios) amounted to €8,791 (€7,033 and €10,549, respectively) for option 1 and €8,904 (€7,057 and €10,750, respectively) for option 2. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight misdiagnoses of sarcomas, which were found to most often be confused with benign tumors. Centralized histological reviews are likely to provide cost-savings for the French NHI.