Technological Distractions (Part 2): A Summary of Approaches to Manage Clinical Alarms With Intent to Reduce Alarm Fatigue.

OBJECTIVE: Alarm fatigue is a widely recognized safety and quality problem where exposure to high rates of clinical alarms results in desensitization leading to dismissal of or slowed response to alarms. Nonactionable alarms are thought to be especially problematic. Despite these concerns, the number of clinical alarm signals has been increasing as an everincreasing number of medical technologies are added to the clinical care environment. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic review of the literature focused on clinical alarms. We asked a primary key question; "what interventions have been attempted and resulted in the success of reducing alarm fatigue?" and 3-secondary key questions; "what are the negative effects on patients/families; what are the balancing outcomes (unintended consequences of interventions); and what human factor approaches apply to making an effective alarm?" DATA EXTRACTION: Articles relevant to the Key Questions were selected through an iterative review process and relevant data was extracted using a standardized tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 62 articles that had relevant and usable data for at least one key question. We found that no study used/developed a clear definition of "alarm fatigue." For our primary key question 1, the relevant studies focused on three main areas: quality improvement/bundled activities; intervention comparisons; and analysis of algorithm-based false and total alarm suppression. All sought to reduce the number of total alarms and/or false alarms to improve the positive predictive value. Most studies were successful to varying degrees. None measured alarm fatigue directly. CONCLUSIONS: There is no agreed upon valid metric(s) for alarm fatigue, and the current methods are mostly indirect. Assuming that reducing the number of alarms and/or improving positive predictive value can reduce alarm fatigue, there are promising avenues to address patient safety and quality problem. Further investment is warranted not only in interventions that may reduce alarm fatigue but also in defining how to best measure it.

Technologic Distractions (Part 1): Summary of Approaches to Manage Alert Quantity With Intent to Reduce Alert Fatigue and Suggestions for Alert Fatigue Metrics.

OBJECTIVE: To provide ICU clinicians with evidence-based guidance on tested interventions that reduce or prevent alert fatigue within clinical decision support systems. DESIGN: Systematic review of PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and CINAHL for relevant literature from 1966 to February 2017. PATIENTS: Focus on critically ill patients and included evaluations in other patient care settings, as well. INTERVENTIONS: Identified interventions designed to reduce or prevent alert fatigue within clinical decision support systems. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Study selection was based on one primary key question to identify effective interventions that attempted to reduce alert fatigue and three secondary key questions that covered the negative effects of alert fatigue, potential unintended consequences of efforts to reduce alert fatigue, and ideal alert quantity. Data were abstracted by two reviewers independently using a standardized abstraction tool. Surveys, meeting abstracts, "gray" literature, studies not available in English, and studies with non-original data were excluded. For the primary key question, articles were excluded if they did not provide a comparator as key question 1 was designed as a problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome question. We anticipated that reduction in alert fatigue, including the concept of desensitization may not be directly measured and thus considered interventions that reduced alert quantity as a surrogate marker for alert fatigue. Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Approaches for managing alert fatigue in the ICU are provided as a result of reviewing tested interventions that reduced alert quantity with the anticipated effect of reducing fatigue. Suggested alert management strategies include prioritizing alerts, developing sophisticated alerts, customizing commercially available alerts, and including end user opinion in alert selection. Alert fatigue itself is studied less frequently, as an outcome, and there is a need for more precise evaluation. Standardized metrics for alert fatigue is needed to advance the field. Suggestions for standardized metrics are provided in this document.

Linking acknowledgement to action: closing the loop on non-urgent, clinically significant test results in the electronic health record.

Failure to follow-up nonurgent, clinically significant test results (CSTRs) is an ambulatory patient safety concern. Tools within electronic health records (EHRs) may facilitate test result acknowledgment, but their utility with regard to nonurgent CSTRs is unclear. We measured use of an acknowledgment tool by 146 primary care physicians (PCPs) at 13 network-affiliated practices that use the same EHR. We then surveyed PCPs to assess use of, satisfaction with, and desired enhancements to the acknowledgment tool. The rate of acknowledgment of non-urgent CSTRs by PCPs was 78%. Of 73 survey respondents, 72 reported taking one or more actions after reviewing a CSTR; fewer (40-75%) reported that using the acknowledgment tool was helpful for a specific purpose. Forty-six (64%) were satisfied with the tool. Both satisfied and nonsatisfied PCPs reported that enhancements linking acknowledgment to routine actions would be useful. EHR vendors should consider enhancements to acknowledgment functionality to ensure follow-up of nonurgent CSTRs.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS: In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).

Unrealized potential and residual consequences of electronic prescribing on pharmacy workflow in the outpatient pharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic prescribing systems have often been promoted as a tool for reducing medication errors and adverse drug events. Recent evidence has revealed that adoption of electronic prescribing systems can lead to unintended consequences such as the introduction of new errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and characterize the unrealized potential and residual consequences of electronic prescribing on pharmacy workflow in an outpatient pharmacy. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team conducted direct observations of workflow in an independent pharmacy and semi-structured interviews with pharmacy staff members about their perceptions of the unrealized potential and residual consequences of electronic prescribing systems. We used qualitative methods to iteratively analyze text data using a grounded theory approach, and derive a list of major themes and subthemes related to the unrealized potential and residual consequences of electronic prescribing. RESULTS: We identified the following five themes: Communication, workflow disruption, cost, technology, and opportunity for new errors. These contained 26 unique subthemes representing different facets of our observations and the pharmacy staff's perceptions of the unrealized potential and residual consequences of electronic prescribing. DISCUSSION: We offer targeted solutions to improve electronic prescribing systems by addressing the unrealized potential and residual consequences that we identified. These recommendations may be applied not only to improve staff perceptions of electronic prescribing systems but also to improve the design and/or selection of these systems in order to optimize communication and workflow within pharmacies while minimizing both cost and the potential for the introduction of new errors.

An initiative to improve the management of clinically significant test results in a large health care network.

BACKGROUND: The failure of providers to communicate and follow up clinically significant test results (CSTR) is an important threat to patient safety. The Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors has endorsed the creation of systems to ensure that results can be received and acknowledged. METHODS: In 2008 a task force was convened that represented clinicians, laboratories, radiology, patient safety, risk management, and information systems in a large health care network with the goals of providing recommendations and a road map for improvement in the management of CSTR and of implementing this improvement plan during the sub-force sequent five years. In drafting its charter, the task broadened the scope from "critical" results to "clinically significant" ones; clinically significant was defined as any result that requires further clinical action to avoid morbidity or mortality, regardless of the urgency of that action. RESULTS: The task force recommended four key areas for improvement--(1) standardization of policies and definitions, (2) robust identification of the patient's care team, (3) enhanced results management/tracking systems, and (4) centralized quality reporting and metrics. The task force faced many challenges in implementing these recommendations, including disagreements on definitions of CSTR and on who should have responsibility for CSTR, changes to established work flows, limitations of resources and of existing information systems, and definition of metrics. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale effort to improve the communication and follow-up of CSTR in a health care network continues with ongoing work to address implementation challenges, refine policies, prepare for a new clinical information system platform, and identify new ways to measure the extent of this important safety problem.

Early recognition of acutely deteriorating patients in non-intensive care units: assessment of an innovative monitoring technology.

BACKGROUND: Continuous vital sign monitoring has the potential to detect early clinical deterioration. While commonly employed in the intensive care unit (ICU), accurate and noninvasive monitoring technology suitable for floor patients has yet to be used reliably. OBJECTIVE: To establish the accuracy of the Earlysense continuous monitoring system in predicting clinical deterioration. DESIGN: Noninterventional prospective study with retrospective data analysis. SETTING: Two medical wards in 2 academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to a medical ward with a diagnosis of an acute respiratory condition. INTERVENTION: Enrolled patients were monitored for heart rate (HR) and respiration rate (RR) by the Earlysense monitor with the alerts turned off. MEASUREMENTS: Retrospective analysis of vital sign data was performed on a derivation cohort to identify optimal cutoffs for threshold and 24-hour trend alerts. This was internally validated through correlation with clinical events recognized through chart review. RESULTS: Of 113 patients included in the study, 9 suffered major clinical deterioration. Alerts were found to be infrequent (2.7 and 0.2 alerts per patient-day for threshold and trend alert, respectively). For the threshold alerts, sensitivity and specificity in predicting deterioration was found to be 82% and 67%, respectively, for HR and 64% and 81%, respectively, for RR. For trend alerts, sensitivity and specificity were 78% and 90% for HR, and 100% and 64% for RR, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Earlysense monitor was able to continuously measure RR and HR, providing low alert frequency. The current study provides data supporting the ability of this system to accurately predict patient deterioration.

Impact of robotic antineoplastic preparation on safety, workflow, and costs.

PURPOSE: Antineoplastic preparation presents unique safety concerns and consumes significant pharmacy staff time and costs. Robotic antineoplastic and adjuvant medication compounding may provide incremental safety and efficiency advantages compared with standard pharmacy practices. METHODS: We conducted a direct observation trial in an academic medical center pharmacy to compare the effects of usual/manual antineoplastic and adjuvant drug preparation (baseline period) with robotic preparation (intervention period). The primary outcomes were serious medication errors and staff safety events with the potential for harm of patients and staff, respectively. Secondary outcomes included medication accuracy determined by gravimetric techniques, medication preparation time, and the costs of both ancillary materials used during drug preparation and personnel time. RESULTS: Among 1,421 and 972 observed medication preparations, we found nine (0.7%) and seven (0.7%) serious medication errors (P = .8) and 73 (5.1%) and 28 (2.9%) staff safety events (P = .007) in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Drugs failed accuracy measurements in 12.5% (23 of 184) and 0.9% (one of 110) of preparations in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively (P < .001). Mean drug preparation time increased by 47% when using the robot (P = .009). Labor costs were similar in both study periods, although the ancillary material costs decreased by 56% in the intervention period (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although robotically prepared antineoplastic and adjuvant medications did not reduce serious medication errors, both staff safety and accuracy of medication preparation were improved significantly. Future studies are necessary to address the overall cost effectiveness of these robotic implementations.

Analysis of risk factors for adverse drug events in critically ill patients*.

OBJECTIVES: An evaluation of risk factors for adverse drug events in critically ill patients has not been previously studied. The purpose of this original study was to determine risk factors for adverse drug events in critically ill adult patients. DESIGN: This retrospective case-control study includes patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit during a 7.5-yr period. SETTING: Academic medical center with 647 beds that contains approximately 120 intensive care unit beds. PATIENTS: Patients in the case group experienced an adverse drug event as documented in the hospital's database. The control group comprised the next two patients admitted to the same intensive care unit by the same admitting service. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine suspected risk factors identified from the literature were evaluated, including patient characteristics, drug characteristics, and laboratory values using a multiple logistic regression. A sample of 1101 cases and controls (54% male), with a mean age of 59.4 ± 17.5 yrs, were identified. In 367 cases, there was a total of 499 documented adverse drug events. Patients with kidney injury, thrombocytopenia, and those admitted emergently were 16-times, 3-times, and 2-times more likely to have an adverse drug event, respectively. Patients who were administered intravenous medications had a 3% higher risk of having an adverse drug event for each drug dispensed. Overall, the case group received more drugs per intensive care unit day and more drugs per intensive care unit stay. CONCLUSIONS: Several patient and drug-related characteristics contribute to the risk of adverse drug events in critically ill patients. Diligent monitoring of factors that can influence the pharmacokinetic properties for existing drug therapies is necessary. Drug regimens should be evaluated daily for minimization. Based on previous studies, pharmacists as part of the interdisciplinary team could help to manage these risks.

National burden of preventable adverse drug events associated with inpatient injectable medications: healthcare and medical professional liability costs.

BACKGROUND: Harmful medication errors, or preventable adverse drug events (ADEs), are a prominent quality and cost issue in healthcare. Injectable medications are important therapeutic agents, but they are associated with a greater potential for serious harm than oral medications. The national burden of preventable ADEs associated with inpatient injectable medications and the associated medical professional liability (MPL) costs have not been previously described in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic burden of preventable ADEs related to inpatient injectable medications in the United States. METHODS: Medical error data (MedMarx 2009-2011) were utilized to derive the distribution of errors by injectable medication types. Hospital data (Premier 2010-2011) identified the numbers and the types of injections per hospitalization. US payer claims (2009-2010 MarketScan Commercial and Medicare 5% Sample) were used to calculate the incremental cost of ADEs by payer and by diagnosis-related group (DRG). The incremental cost of ADEs was defined as inclusive of the time of inpatient admission and the following 4 months. Actuarial calculations, assumptions based on published literature, and DRG proportions from 17 state discharge databases were used to derive the probability of preventable ADEs per hospitalization and their annual costs. MPL costs were assessed from state- and national-level industry reports, premium rates, and from closed claims databases between 1990 and 2011. The 2010 American Hospital Association database was used for hospital-level statistics. All costs were adjusted to 2013 dollars. RESULTS: Based on this medication-level analysis of reported harmful errors and the frequency of inpatient administrations with actuarial projections, we estimate that preventable ADEs associated with injectable medications impact 1.2 million hospitalizations annually. Using a matched cohort analysis of healthcare claims as a basis for evaluating incremental costs, we estimate that inpatient preventable ADEs associated with injectable medications increase the annual US payer costs by $2.7 billion to $5.1 billion, averaging $600,000 in extra costs per hospital. Across categories of injectable drugs, insulin had the highest risk per administration for a preventable ADE, although errors in the higher-volume categories of anti-infective, narcotic/analgesic, anticoagulant/thrombolytic and anxiolytic/sedative injectable medications harmed more patients. Our analysis of liability claims estimates that MPL associated with injectable medications totals $300 million to $610 million annually, with an average cost of $72,000 per US hospital. CONCLUSION: The incremental healthcare and MPL costs of preventable ADEs resulting from inpatient injectable medications are substantial. The data in this study strongly support the clinical and business cases of investing in efforts to prevent errors related to injectable medications.

Evaluating and classifying pharmacists' quality interventions in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: The results of an evaluation of the impact of pharmacists' medication-related interventions on quality of care in the emergency department (ED) setting are reported. METHODS: Using data from a previously published observational study of medication errors intercepted by ED pharmacists at four academic medical centers, trained reviewers retrospectively analyzed 130 additional pharmacist interventions (those not categorized as medication errors in the primary study) over a specified four-month period to identify "quality interventions" (QIs), defined as those that (1) prevented misuse, underuse, or overuse of medications or (2) improved adherence to quality standards or evidence-based medicine (EBM) standards. The study included an evaluation of the medication classes associated with QIs and the acceptance of pharmacist-recommended QIs. RESULTS: The reviewers identified a total of 91 pharmacist QIs at the four sites during the study period (2.3 QIs per 100 patients or about 1 QI per 100 medication orders). About 45% of the identified QIs improved adherence with EBM or national quality standards; other QIs prevented medication underuse (34%), misuse (14%), or overuse (6%). Pharmacists' QIs most often pertained to antiinfective agents (39%), cardiovascular agents (13%), and anticoagulants and thrombolytics (12%). The overall rate of acceptance of pharmacists' QIs was 93.4%. CONCLUSION: A secondary analysis of data from a previously published study at four medical centers indicated that ED pharmacists often recommend interventions that improve the quality of medication use and adherence to EBM and national quality standards.

The research agenda in ICU telemedicine: a statement from the Critical Care Societies Collaborative.

ICU telemedicine uses audiovisual conferencing technology to provide critical care from a remote location. Research is needed to best define the optimal use of ICU telemedicine, but efforts are hindered by methodological challenges and the lack of an organized delivery approach. We convened an interdisciplinary working group to develop a research agenda in ICU telemedicine, addressing both methodological and knowledge gaps in the field. To best inform clinical decision-making and health policy, future research should be organized around a conceptual framework that enables consistent descriptions of both the study setting and the telemedicine intervention. The framework should include standardized methods for assessing the preimplementation ICU environment and describing the telemedicine program. This framework will facilitate comparisons across studies and improve generalizability by permitting context-specific interpretation. Research based on this framework should consider the multidisciplinary nature of ICU care and describe the specific program goals. Key topic areas to be addressed include the effect of ICU telemedicine on the structure, process, and outcome of critical care delivery. Ideally, future research should attempt to address causation instead of simply associations and elucidate the mechanism of action in order to determine exactly how ICU telemedicine achieves its effects. ICU telemedicine has significant potential to improve critical care delivery, but high-quality research is needed to best inform its use. We propose an agenda to advance the science of ICU telemedicine and generate research with the greatest potential to improve patient care.

Errors associated with outpatient computerized prescribing systems.

OBJECTIVE: To report the frequency, types, and causes of errors associated with outpatient computer-generated prescriptions, and to develop a framework to classify these errors to determine which strategies have greatest potential for preventing them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 3850 computer-generated prescriptions received by a commercial outpatient pharmacy chain across three states over 4 weeks in 2008. A clinician panel reviewed the prescriptions using a previously described method to identify and classify medication errors. Primary outcomes were the incidence of medication errors; potential adverse drug events, defined as errors with potential for harm; and rate of prescribing errors by error type and by prescribing system. RESULTS: Of 3850 prescriptions, 452 (11.7%) contained 466 total errors, of which 163 (35.0%) were considered potential adverse drug events. Error rates varied by computerized prescribing system, from 5.1% to 37.5%. The most common error was omitted information (60.7% of all errors). DISCUSSION: About one in 10 computer-generated prescriptions included at least one error, of which a third had potential for harm. This is consistent with the literature on manual handwritten prescription error rates. The number, type, and severity of errors varied by computerized prescribing system, suggesting that some systems may be better at preventing errors than others. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a computerized prescribing system without comprehensive functionality and processes in place to ensure meaningful system use does not decrease medication errors. The authors offer targeted recommendations on improving computerized prescribing systems to prevent errors.

Comparison of computerized surveillance and manual chart review for adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the source of information affects different adverse event (AE) surveillance methods. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of inpatient adverse drug events (ADEs) and hospital-associated infections (HAIs) detected by either a computerized surveillance system (CSS) or manual chart review (MCR). MEASUREMENT: Descriptive analysis of events detected using the two methods by type of AE, type of information about the AE, and sources of the information. RESULTS: CSS detected more HAIs than MCR (92% vs 34%); however, a similar number of ADEs was detected by both systems (52% vs 51%). The agreement between systems was greater for HAIs than ADEs (26% vs 3%). The CSS missed events that did not have information in coded format or that were described only in physician narratives. The MCR detected events missed by CSS using information in physician narratives. Discharge summaries were more likely to contain information about AEs than any other type of physician narrative, followed by emergency department reports for HAIs and general consult notes for ADEs. Some ADEs found by MCR were detected by CSS but not verified by a clinician. LIMITATIONS: Inability to distinguish between CSS false positives and suspected AEs for cases in which the clinician did not document their assessment in the CSS. CONCLUSION: The effect that information source has on different surveillance methods depends on the type of AE. Integrating information from physician narratives with CSS using natural language processing would improve the detection of ADEs more than HAIs.

Addition of electronic prescription transmission to computerized prescriber order entry: Effect on dispensing errors in community pharmacies.

PURPOSE: The addition of electronic prescription transmission to computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) and its effect on dispensing errors in community pharmacies were evaluated. METHODS: A controlled, before-and-after trial to measure the effect of electronic prescribing on dispensing errors in two control clinics and one e-prescribing clinic already using CPOE was conducted between January and November 2006. Prescriptions documented within the CPOE system were reconciled with dispensed prescription information from participating pharmacy chains via a national pharmacy information exchange network. Dispensing errors were defined as discrepancies between the prescriber's written orders and the dispensed prescription information. Prescriptions filled at nonparticipating pharmacies were not analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 11,447 prescriptions were written in the control clinics, and 29,575 were written in the e-prescribing clinic. During the intervention period, 2,179 (22%) of 9,905 intervention clinic prescriptions were electronically transmitted, including 621 (28%) available for analysis. There was no significant difference in the dispensing-error rates between the baseline and intervention periods for the control clinics. Similarly, the dispensing-error rates did not differ significantly for the e-prescribing clinic between the baseline and intervention periods for prescriptions that were not electronically transmitted. The e-prescribing clinic's dispensing-error rate for electronically transmitted prescriptions during the intervention was significantly lower than its baseline dispensing-error rate (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Electronic transmission of prescription data from physicians' offices to a pharmacy nearly halved the risk of dispensing errors compared with generating the prescription with outpatient CPOE and printing it and giving it to the patient.

Recovered Medical Error Inventory.

PURPOSE: To describe the development and psychometric testing of the Recovered Medical Error Inventory (RMEI). DESIGN AND METHODS: Content analysis of structured interviews with expert critical care registered nurses (CCRNs) was used to empirically derive a 25-item RMEI. The RMEI was pilot tested with 345 CCRNs. The data set was randomly divided to use the first half for reliability testing and the second half for validation. A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted. Cronbach's alpha values were examined. A t test and Pearson correlation were used to compare scores of the two samples. FINDINGS: The RMEI consists of 25 items and two subscales. Evidence for initial reliability includes a total scale alpha of .9 and subscale alpha coefficients of .88 (mistake) and .75 (poor judgment). CONCLUSIONS: The RMEI subscales have satisfactory internal consistency reliability and evidence for construct validity. Additional testing is warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A tool to measure CCRNs' experiences with recovering medical errors allows quantification of nurse surveillance in promoting safe care and preventing unreimbursed hospital costs for treating nosocomial events.

Adverse drug events in intensive care units: risk factors, impact, and the role of team care.

Advances in diagnostic tests, technological interventions, and pharmacotherapy have resulted in spectacular results for many intensive care unit (ICU) patients who, in earlier generations, would have succumbed to their critical illness. At the same time, the complexity and intensity of care required for ICU patients is also associated with greater risks for harm resulting from care. As in other inpatient areas, medications are the most common type of therapy in ICUs and are also associated with the most frequent type of ICU adverse events. Critically ill patients are at high risk for adverse drug events for many reasons, including the complexity of their disease that creates challenges in drug dosing, their vulnerability to rapid changes in pharmacotherapy, the intensive care environment providing ample distractions and opportunity for error, the administration of complex drug regimens, the numerous high-alert medications that they receive, and the mode of drug administration. The clinical outcomes of adverse drug events can result in end-organ damage and even death. The costs of an adverse drug event can be substantial to healthcare systems with an additional $6,000-$9,000 for each event. The multiprofessional patient care team is one approach to promoting patient safety in the ICU.

Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration.

BACKGROUND: Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has been developed to verify medications by incorporating bar-code verification technology within an electronic medication-administration system (bar-code eMAR). METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study in an academic medical center that was implementing the bar-code eMAR. We assessed rates of errors in order transcription and medication administration on units before and after implementation of the bar-code eMAR. Errors that involved early or late administration of medications were classified as timing errors and all others as nontiming errors. Two clinicians reviewed the errors to determine their potential to harm patients and classified those that could be harmful as potential adverse drug events. RESULTS: We observed 14,041 medication administrations and reviewed 3082 order transcriptions. Observers noted 776 nontiming errors in medication administration on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR (an 11.5% error rate) versus 495 such errors on units that did use it (a 6.8% error rate)--a 41.4% relative reduction in errors (P<0.001). The rate of potential adverse drug events (other than those associated with timing errors) fell from 3.1% without the use of the bar-code eMAR to 1.6% with its use, representing a 50.8% relative reduction (P<0.001). The rate of timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3% (P<0.001), but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly. Transcription errors occurred at a rate of 6.1% on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR but were completely eliminated on units that did use it. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and in medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. Our data show that the bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243373.)

Medical errors recovered by critical care nurses.

OBJECTIVE: : The frequency and types of medical errors are well documented, but less is known about potential errors that were intercepted by nurses. We studied the type, frequency, and potential harm of recovered medical errors reported by critical care registered nurses (CCRNs) during the previous year. BACKGROUND: : Nurses are known to protect patients from harm. Several studies on medical errors found that there would have been more medical errors reaching the patient had not potential errors been caught earlier by nurses. METHODS: : The Recovered Medical Error Inventory, a 25-item empirically derived and internally consistent (alpha =.90) list of medical errors, was posted on the Internet. Participants were recruited via e-mail and healthcare-related listservs using a nonprobability snowball sampling technique. Investigators e-mailed contacts working in hospitals or who managed healthcare-related listservs and asked the contacts to pass the link on to others with contacts in acute care settings. RESULTS: : During 1 year, 345 CCRNs reported that they recovered 18,578 medical errors, of which they rated 4,183 as potentially lethal. CONCLUSION: : Surveillance, clinical judgment, and interventions by CCRNs to identify, interrupt, and correct medical errors protected seriously ill patients from harm.