Validación en pediatría de un método para notificación y seguimiento de errores de medicación / Validation of a method for notifying and monitoring medication errors in pediatrics

OBJETIVO: Analizar el impacto en la notificación de errores de medicación de la puesta en marcha de un comité de seguridad multidisciplinar descentralizado en la unidad de gestión pediátrica, e implantación conjunta de una aplicación informática en red para la comunicación de errores de medicación, mediante seguimiento de los errores y análisis de las mejoras. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, descriptivo, transversal pre-post intervención. Se analizan los errores de medicación notificados a la comisión central de seguridad, en los 12 meses previos a la implantación, y los notificados mediante la aplicación informática descentralizada a la comisión de seguridad de la unidad de gestión, en los 9 meses posteriores, y las estrategias generadas por el análisis. Variables medidas: Número de errores notificados por 10.000 días de estancia, número de errores con daño por 10.000 días de estancia, tipo, categoría en función de la gravedad, fase del proceso, colectivo que notifica y medicamentos implicados. RESULTADOS: Se multiplican por 4,6 los errores de medicación notificados -7,6 notificaciones por 10.000 días de estancia en el periodo preintervención y 36 en el postintervención-, razón de tasas de 0,21 (IC 95%: 0,11-0,39) p < 0,001. No cambian prácticamente los errores con daño o que necesitaron monitorización notificados por 10.000 días de estancia de un periodo a otro, razón de tasas: 0,77 (IC95%: 0,31-1,91) p > 0,05. Se multiplica por 17,4 la notificación de errores sin daño o potenciales por 10.000 días de estancia, razón de tasas: 0,005 (IC 95%: 0,001-0,026) p < 0,001. CONCLUSIONES: El incremento de los errores de medicación notificados en el periodo postintervención es reflejo del aumento en la motivación de los profesionales sanitarios para notificar a través de este nuevo método

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of a multidisciplinary and decentralized safety committee in the pediatric management unit, and the joint implementation of a computing network application for reporting medication errors, monitoring the follow-up of the errors, and an analysis of the improvements introduced. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, pre-post intervention study was performed. An analysis was made of medication errors reported to the central safety committee in the twelve months prior to introduction, and those reported to the decentralized safety committee in the management unit in the nine months after implementation, using the computer application, and the strategies generated by the analysis of reported errors. Measured variables: Number of reported errors/10,000 days of stay, number of reported errors with harm per 10,000 days of stay, types of error, categories based on severity, stage of the process, and groups involved in the notification of medication errors. RESULTS: Reported medication errors increased 4.6 -fold, from7.6 notifications of medication errors per 10,000 days of stay in the pre-intervention period to 36 in the post-intervention, rate ratio 0.21 (95% CI; 0.11-0.39) (P < .001). The medication errors with harm or requiring monitoring reported per 10,000 days of stay, was virtually unchanged from one period to the other ratio rate 0,77 (95% IC; 0,31-1,91) (P>.05). The notification of potential errors or errors without harm per 10,000 days of stay increased 17.4-fold (rate ratio 0.005., 95% CI; 0.001-0.026, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in medication errors notified in the post-intervention period is a reflection of an increase in the motivation of health professionals to report errors through this new method

[Validation of a method for notifying and monitoring medication errors in pediatrics]. / Validación en pediatría de un método para notificación y seguimiento de errores de medicación.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of a multidisciplinary and decentralized safety committee in the pediatric management unit, and the joint implementation of a computing network application for reporting medication errors, monitoring the follow-up of the errors, and an analysis of the improvements introduced. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, pre-post intervention study was performed. An analysis was made of medication errors reported to the central safety committee in the twelve months prior to introduction, and those reported to the decentralized safety committee in the management unit in the nine months after implementation, using the computer application, and the strategies generated by the analysis of reported errors. MEASURED VARIABLES: Number of reported errors/10,000 days of stay, number of reported errors with harm per 10,000 days of stay, types of error, categories based on severity, stage of the process, and groups involved in the notification of medication errors. RESULTS: Reported medication errors increased 4.6 -fold, from 7.6 notifications of medication errors per 10,000 days of stay in the pre-intervention period to 36 in the post-intervention, rate ratio 0.21 (95% CI; 0.11-0.39) (P<.001). The medication errors with harm or requiring monitoring reported per 10,000 days of stay, was virtually unchanged from one period to the other ratio rate 0,77 (95% IC; 0,31-1,91) (P>.05). The notification of potential errors or errors without harm per 10,000 days of stay increased 17.4-fold (rate ratio 0.005., 95% CI; 0.001-0.026, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in medication errors notified in the post-intervention period is a reflection of an increase in the motivation of health professionals to report errors through this new method.

Lista modelo de medicamentos de alto riesgo / A model list of high risk drugs

Introducción: Los «medicamentos de alto riesgo» son aquellos con un «riesgo» muy elevado de causar daños graves o incluso mortales cuando se produce un error en el curso de su utilización. El Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) elaboró una relación aplicable a la población general, sin diferenciar población pediátrica y adulta, por lo que existe carencia de información para la población pediátrica. El objetivo de este trabajo es elaborar una lista de medicamentos de alto riesgo adaptada a la población pediátrica y neonatal que sirva de referencia para el personal sanitario de un hospital pediátrico. Material y métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en mayo del 2012 en las principales bases de datos biomédicas, para identificar posibles listas o referencias publicadas en relación con medicamentos de alto riesgo en población pediátrica y neonatal. Resultados: Se encontraron 15 trabajos, seleccionándose 9 para el objetivo principal del estudio. Se elaboró una lista guía tomando como base la del ISMP, añadiendo fármacos con alta percepción de riesgo para la población pediátrica y eliminando aquellos cuyo uso en pediatría era anecdótico. Conclusiones: No se encontró una lista publicada que se adaptase totalmente a nuestro objetivo. La lista de medicamentos de alto riesgo en población pediátrica y neonatal elaborada puede ser modelo de referencia para hospitales pediátricos. Su conocimiento y utilización, así como actividades derivadas de la misma enmarcadas dentro de la política de seguridad, ayudará a evitar errores de medicación en cada proceso de la cadena terapéutica (prescripción, transcripción, dispensación y administración) (AU)

Introduction: «High-risk drugs» are those that have a very high «risk» of causing death or serious injury if an error occurs during its use. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has prepared a high-risk drugs list applicable to the general population (with no differences between the pediatric and adult population). Thus, there is a lack of information for the pediatric population. The main objective of this work is to develop a high-risk drug list adapted to the neonatal or pediatric population as a reference model for the pediatric hospital health workforce. Material and methods: We made a literature search in May 2012 to identify any published lists or references in relation to pediatric and/or neonatal high-risk drugs. Results: A total of 15 studies were found, from which 9 were selected. A model list was developed mainly based on the ISMP one, adding strongly perceived pediatric risk drugs and removing those where the pediatric use was anecdotal. Conclusions: There is no published list that suits pediatric risk management. The list of pediatric and neonatal high-risk drugs presented here could be a «reference list of high-risk drugs » for pediatric hospitals. Using this list and training will help to prevent medication errors in each drug supply chain (prescribing, transcribing, dispensing and administration) (AU)

[A model list of high risk drugs]. / Lista modelo de medicamentos de alto riesgo.

INTRODUCTION: «High-risk drugs¼ are those that have a very high «risk¼ of causing death or serious injury if an error occurs during its use. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has prepared a high-risk drugs list applicable to the general population (with no differences between the pediatric and adult population). Thus, there is a lack of information for the pediatric population. The main objective of this work is to develop a high-risk drug list adapted to the neonatal or pediatric population as a reference model for the pediatric hospital health workforce. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We made a literature search in May 2012 to identify any published lists or references in relation to pediatric and/or neonatal high-risk drugs. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were found, from which 9 were selected. A model list was developed mainly based on the ISMP one, adding strongly perceived pediatric risk drugs and removing those where the pediatric use was anecdotal. CONCLUSIONS: There is no published list that suits pediatric risk management. The list of pediatric and neonatal high-risk drugs presented here could be a «reference list of high-risk drugs ¼ for pediatric hospitals. Using this list and training will help to prevent medication errors in each drug supply chain (prescribing, transcribing, dispensing and administration).

Piperacilina-tazobactam en perfusión continua o expandida frente a perfusión intermitente / Piperacillin-tazobactam in continuous or expanded perfusion vs intermittent perfusion

Objetivo: El objetivo principal de esta revisión es analizar las diferencias de eficacia entre la administración en perfusión intermitente y la administración en perfusión continua/expandida de piperacilina-tazobactam. Como objetivos secundarios se analizan las diferencias en seguridad, parámetros farmacocinéticos/farmacodinámicos y coste-efectividad entre las 2 formas de administración. Método Se realizaron 2 búsquedas bibliográficas independientes. Se encontraron un total de 38 artículos y finalmente se incluyeron en el estudio 6. Se analizaron los artículos incluidos y se recogieron las variables diseño, tratamiento administrado a cada grupo, número de pacientes total y perteneciente a cada grupo, variables recogidas en cada estudio y resultados. Resultados Se hallaron diferencias significativas en la variable principal en 2 de los 6 estudios incluidos a favor de la perfusión continua/expandida. En el estudio de Lodise et al. se encontraron diferencias (p = 0,04) en mortalidad (31,6% en perfusión intermitente vs 12,2% en perfusión continua/expandida). En el estudio de Lorente et al. se encontraron diferencias (p = 0,001) en curación clínica (56,5% perfusión intermitente vs 89,2% en perfusión continua/expandida). En cuanto a las variables secundarias solo se encontraron diferencias en uno de los estudios en la relación coste-efectividad a favor del grupo de perfusión continua/expandida. Conclusión Los datos analizados indican que la perfusión continua/expandida sería al menos igual de eficaz que la perfusión intermitente, y que podría ser más eficaz en pacientes más graves, o con infecciones por microorganismos más resistentes, como Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Además esta forma de administración es, en teoría, más coste-efectiva (AU)

Objective: The primary objective of this review was to analyse the differences in efficacy between the administration of intermittent and continuous/expanded perfusion of piperacillin-tazobactam. Secondary objectives were to analyse the differences in safety, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, and cost-effectiveness between the two forms of administration. Method: We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. We encountered a total of 38 articles, and the final number included in the study was 6. We analysed the articles and collected the following variables: design, treatment administered to each group, total number of patients and number of patients in each study, variables collected in each study, and results. Results: We encountered significant differences in the primary variable in two of the six studies favouring continuous/expanded perfusion. The study by Lodise et al found differences (P=.04)in mortality (31.6% for intermittent perfusion vs 12.2% for continuous/expanded perfusion).The study by Lorente et al found differences (P=.001) in terms of clinical recovery (56.5% for intermittent perfusion vs 89.2% for continuous/expanded perfusion). As for secondary variables, we only found differences in one of the studies in relation to cost-effectiveness, in favour of the group who underwent continuous/expanded perfusion method. Conclusion: The analysed data suggest that continuous/expanded perfusion would be at least as effective as intermittent perfusion, and that it could be more effective in severe patients with infections from more resistant micro-organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Additionally, this form of administration is more cost-effective, at least in theory (AU)

[Piperacillin-tazobactam in continuous or expanded perfusion vs intermittent perfusion]. / Piperacilina-tazobactam en perfusión continua o expandida frente a perfusión intermitente.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to analyse the differences in efficacy between the administration of intermittent and continuous/expanded perfusion of piperacillin-tazobactam. Secondary objectives were to analyse the differences in safety, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters, and cost-effectiveness between the two forms of administration. METHOD: We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. We encountered a total of 38 articles, and the final number included in the study was 6. We analysed the articles and collected the following variables: design, treatment administered to each group, total number of patients and number of patients in each study, variables collected in each study, and results. RESULTS: We encountered significant differences in the primary variable in two of the six studies favouring continuous/expanded perfusion. The study by Lodise et al found differences (P=.04) in mortality (31.6% for intermittent perfusion vs 12.2% for continuous/expanded perfusion). The study by Lorente et al found differences (P=.001) in terms of clinical recovery (56.5% for intermittent perfusion vs 89.2% for continuous/expanded perfusion). As for secondary variables, we only found differences in one of the studies in relation to cost-effectiveness, in favour of the group who underwent continuous/expanded perfusion method. CONCLUSION: The analysed data suggest that continuous/expanded perfusion would be at least as effective as intermittent perfusion, and that it could be more effective in severe patients with infections from more resistant micro-organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Additionally, this form of administration is more cost-effective, at least in theory.