Perioperative medication management: expanding the role of the preadmission clinic pharmacist in a single centre, randomised controlled trial of collaborative prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: Current evidence to support non-medical prescribing is predominantly qualitative, with little evaluation of accuracy, safety and appropriateness. Our aim was to evaluate a new model of service for the Australia healthcare system, of inpatient medication prescribing by a pharmacist in an elective surgery preadmission clinic (PAC) against usual care, using an endorsed performance framework. DESIGN: Single centre, randomised controlled, two-arm trial. SETTING: Elective surgery PAC in a Brisbane-based tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 400 adults scheduled for elective surgery were randomised to intervention or control. INTERVENTION: A pharmacist generated the inpatient medication chart to reflect the patient's regular medication, made a plan for medication perioperatively and prescribed venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In the control arm, the medication chart was generated by the Resident Medical Officers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was frequency of omissions and prescribing errors when compared against the medication history. The clinical significance of omissions was also analysed. Secondary outcome was appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis prescribing. RESULTS: There were significantly less unintended omissions of medications: 11 of 887 (1.2%) intervention orders compared with 383 of 1217 (31.5%) control (p<0.001). There were significantly less prescribing errors involving selection of drug, dose or frequency: 2 in 857 (0.2%) intervention orders compared with 51 in 807 (6.3%) control (p<0.001). Orders with at least one component of the prescription missing, incorrect or unclear occurred in 208 of 904 (23%) intervention orders and 445 of 1034 (43%) controls (p<0.001). VTE prophylaxis on admission to the ward was appropriate in 93% of intervention patients and 90% controls (p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Medication charts in the intervention arm contained fewer clinically significant omissions, and prescribing errors, when compared with controls. There was no difference in appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis on admission between the two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ANZCTR-ACTR Number ACTRN12609000426280.

Impact of a standard medication chart on prescribing errors: a before-and-after audit.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop and implement a standard medication chart, for recording prescribing (medication orders) and administration of medication in public hospitals in Queensland. (2) To assess the chart's impact on the frequency and type of prescribing errors, adverse drug reaction (ADR) documentation and safety of warfarin prescribing. (3) To use the chart to facilitate safe medication management training. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The medication chart was developed through a process of incident analysis and work practice mapping by a multidisciplinary collaborative. Observational audits by nurse and pharmacist pairs, of all available prescriptions before and after introduction of the standard medication chart, were undertaken in five sites. RESULTS: Similar numbers of both patients (730 pre-implementation and 751 post-implementation; orders, 9772 before and 10 352 after) were observed. The prescribing error rate decreased from 20.0% of orders per patient before to 15.8% after (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.03). Previous ADRs were not documented for 19.5% of 185 patients before and 11.2% of 197 patients after (chi(2), p = 0.032). Prescribing errors involving selection of a drug to which a patient had had a previous ADR decreased from 11.3% of patients before to 4.6% after (chi(2), p = 0.021). International normalised ratios (INRs) >5 decreased from 1.9% of 14 405 INRs in the 12 months before to 1.45% of 15 090 INRs after (chi(2), p = 0.004). After minor modifications, the chart was introduced into all hospitals statewide, which enabled standardised medication training and safer rotation of staff. The chart also formed the basis for the National Inpatient Medication Chart. CONCLUSION: Introduction of a standard revised medication chart significantly reduced the frequency of prescribing errors, improved ADR documentation and decreased the potential risks associated with warfarin management. The standard chart has enabled uniform training in medicine management.

Factors predictive of intravenous fluid administration errors in Australian surgical care wards.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) fluid administration is an integral component of clinical care. Errors in administration can cause detrimental patient outcomes and increase healthcare costs, although little is known about medication administration errors associated with continuous IV infusions. OBJECTIVES: (1) To ascertain the prevalence of medication administration errors for continuous IV infusions and identify the variables that caused them. (2) To quantify the probability of errors by fitting a logistic regression model to the data. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on three surgical wards at a teaching hospital in Australia. All study participants received continuous infusions of IV fluids. Parenteral nutrition and non-electrolyte containing intermittent drug infusions (such as antibiotics) were excluded. Medication administration errors and contributing variables were documented using a direct observational approach. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty seven observations were made, with 124 (18.0%) having at least one medication administration error. The most common error observed was wrong administration rate. The median deviation from the prescribed rate was -47 ml/h (interquartile range -75 to +33.8 ml/h). Errors were more likely to occur if an IV infusion control device was not used and as the duration of the infusion increased. CONCLUSIONS: Administration errors involving continuous IV infusions occur frequently. They could be reduced by more common use of IV infusion control devices and regular checking of administration rates.