Drug-related deaths among inpatients: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence of drug-related deaths with regard to total hospital mortality and to explore the heterogeneity in its estimation through subgroup analysis, univariate and multivariate analysis. METHODS: Two investigators independently searched the PubMed and Google Scholar databases with appropriate key terms to identify observational and randomised studies assessing drug-related problems. The prevalence of drug-related deaths was estimated using a double arcsine method. The heterogeneity was explored through subgroup and univariate analysis for the following study characteristics: study design, age group, study ward, study region, types of drug-related problems, study duration, sample size and study period. The study variables showing significant effects were further explored through a multivariable regression model. The percentage of preventable drug-related deaths was explored as a secondary objective. RESULTS: Of the 480 full-text articles assessed, 23 studies satisfying the selection criteria were included. The mean percentage of drug-related deaths was 5.6% (95% CI: 3.8-7.6%; I2 = 96%). The univariable analysis showed study design (regression coefficient: 4.31) and study wards (regression coefficient: - 6.37) as heterogeneity modifiers. In the multivariable model, only the study ward was considered a significant predictor of drug-related deaths (regression coefficient: - 5.78; p = 0.04). The mean percentage of preventable drug-related deaths was 45.2% (95% CI: 33.6-57.0%; I2 = 60%). CONCLUSION: Drug-related problems are an important cause of mortality. The variability in its estimation could be explained by admission wards.

An analysis of fatal iatrogenic therapeutic errors reported to United States poison centers.

OBJECTIVE: This is a descriptive study evaluating fatal iatrogenic and in-hospital medication errors reported to United States poison centers. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of the National Poison Data System from 2000-2017 of all therapeutic errors with a scenario coded as iatrogenic/healthcare professional or occurring in a healthcare facility. Death abstracts were reviewed for details of the exposure and therapeutic error scenarios were recoded or added to the case as appropriate. Cases, where death was considered not related to the exposure, were excluded. Additionally, we created one additional scenario (rate-related) and one additional route of administration (intrathecal) to better describe the cases. RESULTS: A total of 172 cases were evaluated. The majority of the patients were female (52.3%) with a median age of 58.5 years (range: 2 days to 96 years). The most commonly reported medication error was "other incorrect dose" (22.7%) followed by other/unknown error (15.1%). The route of exposure was primarily parenteral (54.9%), followed by ingestion (30.2%), then intrathecal (7.0%). The most common medications were cardiac drugs, chemotherapeutics, opioids, anticoagulants, and sedative-hypnotic/antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: Iatrogenic and in-hospital medication errors have been studied extensively with goals to reduce their occurrence. Specific controls to prevent incorrect dosing routes, 10-fold overdoses, and incorrect intrathecal administration have been instituted. Despite interventions, all three of these therapeutic errors continued to occur in 2017, suggesting that more preventive controls should be instituted.

Medications and patient safety in the trauma setting: a systematic review.

Background: Medication errors account for the most common adverse events and a significant cause of mortality in the USA. The Joint Commission has required medication reconciliation since 2006. We aimed to survey the literature and determine the challenges and effectiveness of medication reconciliation in the trauma patient population. Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the effectiveness of medication reconciliation in trauma patients. English language articles were retrieved from PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Review databases with search terms "trauma OR injury, AND medication reconciliation OR med rec OR med rek, AND effectiveness OR errors OR intervention OR improvements." Results: The search resulted in 82 articles. After screening for relevance and duplicates, the 43 remaining were further reviewed, and only four articles, which presented results on medication reconciliation in 3041 trauma patients, were included. Two were retrospective and two were prospective. Two showed only 4% accuracy at time of admission with 48% of medication reconciliations having at least one medication discrepancy. There were major differences across the studies prohibiting comparative statistical analysis. Conclusions: Trauma medication reconciliation is important because of the potential for adverse outcomes given the emergent nature of the illness. The few articles published at this time on medication reconciliation in trauma suggest poor accuracy. Numerous strategies have been implemented in general medicine to improve its accuracy, but these have not yet been studied in trauma. This topic is an important but unrecognized area of research in this field.

Preventing Future Deaths from Medicines: Responses to Coroners' Concerns in England and Wales.

INTRODUCTION: Coroners inquire into sudden, unexpected, or unnatural deaths. We have previously established 99 cases (100 deaths) in England and Wales in which medicines or part of the medication process or both were mentioned in coroners' 'Regulation 28 Reports to Prevent Future Deaths' (coroners' reports). OBJECTIVE: We wished to see what responses were made by National Health Service (NHS) organizations and others to these 99 coroners' reports. METHODS: Where possible, we identified the party or parties to whom these reports were addressed (names were occasionally redacted). We then sought responses, either from the UK judiciary website or by making requests to the addressee directly or, for NHS and government entities, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Responses were analysed by theme to indicate the steps taken to prevent future deaths. RESULTS: We were able to analyse one or more responses to 69/99 cases from 106 organizations. We analysed 201 separate actions proposed or taken to address the 160 concerns expressed by coroners. Staff education or training was the most common form of action taken (44/201). Some organisations made changes in process (24/201) or policy (17/201), and some felt existing policies were sufficient to address some concerns (22/201). CONCLUSIONS: Coroners' concerns are often of national importance but are not currently shared nationally. Only a minority of responses to coroners' reports concerning medicines are in the public domain. Processes for auditing responses and assessing their effectiveness are opaque. Few of the responses appear to provide robust and generally applicable ways to prevent future deaths.

A review of coronial investigations into medication-related deaths in residential aged care.

BACKGROUND: Residential aged care is a complex and challenging clinical setting where medication errors continue to occur despite efforts to improve medication safety. No studies have sought to review and synthesize coronial investigations into medication-related deaths in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs). OBJECTIVE: To review coronial investigations into medication-related deaths in Australian RACFs. METHODS: A national review of medication-related deaths between July 2000 and July 2013 reported to Australian Coroners was performed. Data were extracted from the National Coronial Information System and errors categorized according to stages of the medication management cycle. RESULTS: The database search identified thirty coronial investigations into deaths. Single medication classes were implicated in 22 deaths; including opioids (n = 7), antipsychotics (n = 4) and antidepressants (n = 3). Eight deaths resulted from two or more medication classes. Thirteen deaths reported stages of medication errors, including administration (n = 9) and monitoring (n = 4). Coroners made recommendations following three deaths; including education and training on dose administration aids, regulation of personal care workers, and protocol-based renal function monitoring for residents taking digoxin. CONCLUSIONS: Deaths involving high-risk medications occurred primarily at the stages of administration and monitoring. Few investigations resulted in specific recommendations, however it is unknown whether these were implemented.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent medication errors: an umbrella systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent medication error on medication administration errors, medication-related harms and medication-related death in acute care patients?

Professional, structural and organisational interventions in primary care for reducing medication errors.

BACKGROUND: Medication-related adverse events in primary care represent an important cause of hospital admissions and mortality. Adverse events could result from people experiencing adverse drug reactions (not usually preventable) or could be due to medication errors (usually preventable). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of professional, organisational and structural interventions compared to standard care to reduce preventable medication errors by primary healthcare professionals that lead to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registries on 4 October 2016, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several sources of grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials in which healthcare professionals provided community-based medical services. We also included interventions in outpatient clinics attached to a hospital where people are seen by healthcare professionals but are not admitted to hospital. We only included interventions that aimed to reduce medication errors leading to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, or mortality. We included all participants, irrespective of age, who were prescribed medication by a primary healthcare professional. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data. Each of the outcomes (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality), are reported in natural units (i.e. number of participants with an event per total number of participants at follow-up). We presented all outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 studies (169,969 participants) in the review addressing various interventions to prevent medication errors; four studies addressed professional interventions (8266 participants) and 26 studies described organisational interventions (161,703 participants). We did not find any studies addressing structural interventions. Professional interventions included the use of health information technology to identify people at risk of medication problems, computer-generated care suggested and actioned by a physician, electronic notification systems about dose changes, drug interventions and follow-up, and educational interventions on drug use aimed at physicians to improve drug prescriptions. Organisational interventions included medication reviews by pharmacists, nurses or physicians, clinician-led clinics, and home visits by clinicians.There is a great deal of diversity in types of professionals involved and where the studies occurred. However, most (61%) of the interventions were conducted by pharmacists or a combination of pharmacists and medical doctors. The studies took place in many different countries; 65% took place in either the USA or the UK. They all ranged from three months to 4.7 years of follow-up, they all took place in primary care settings such as general practice, outpatients' clinics, patients' homes and aged-care facilities. The participants in the studies were adults taking medications and the interventions were undertaken by healthcare professionals including pharmacists, nurses or physicians. There was also evidence of potential bias in some studies, with only 18 studies reporting adequate concealment of allocation and only 12 studies reporting appropriate protection from contamination, both of which may have influenced the overall effect estimate and the overall pooled estimate. Professional interventionsProfessional interventions probably make little or no difference to the number of hospital admissions (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.96; 2 studies, 3889 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Professional interventions make little or no difference to the number of participants admitted to hospital (adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 1 study, 3661 participants; high-certainty evidence). Professional interventions may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits (adjusted RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1067 participants; low-certainty evidence). Professional interventions probably make little or no difference to mortality in the study population (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 1 study, 3538 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Organisational interventionsOverall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of hospital admissions (adjusted RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.03; 11 studies, 6203 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Overall, organisational interventions may make little difference to the total number of people admitted to hospital in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 13 studies, 152,237 participants; low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of emergency department visits in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.15; 5 studies, 1819 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce mortality in favour of the intervention group (adjusted RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 12 studies, 154,962 participants; very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate- and low-certainty evidence, interventions in primary care for reducing preventable medication errors probably make little or no difference to the number of people admitted to hospital or the number of hospitalisations, emergency department visits, or mortality. The variation in heterogeneity in the pooled estimates means that our results should be treated cautiously as the interventions may not have worked consistently across all studies due to differences in how the interventions were provided, background practice, and culture or delivery of the interventions. Larger studies addressing both professional and organisational interventions are needed before evidence-based recommendations can be made. We did not identify any structural interventions and only four studies used professional interventions, and so more work needs to be done with these types of interventions. There is a need for high-quality studies describing the interventions in more detail and testing patient-related outcomes.

Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Medication Errors Resulting in Hospitalization and Death of Nursing Home Residents.

Medication errors (MEs) result in preventable harm to nursing home (NH) residents and pose a significant financial burden. Institutionalized older people are particularly vulnerable because of various organizational and individual factors. This systematic review reports the prevalence of MEs leading to hospitalization and death in NH residents and the factors associated with risk of death and hospitalization. A systematic search was conducted of the relevant peer-reviewed research published between January 1, 2000, and October 1, 2015, in English, French, German, or Spanish examining serious outcomes of MEs in NHs residents. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and examined three types of MEs: all MEs (n = 5), transfer-related MEs (n = 5), and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (n = 1). MEs were common, involving 16-27% of residents in studies examining all types of MEs and 13-31% of residents in studies examining transfer-related MEs, and 75% of residents were prescribed at least one PIM. That said, serious effects of MEs were surprisingly low and were reported in only a small proportion of errors (0-1% of MEs), with death being rare. Whether MEs resulting in serious outcomes are truly infrequent, or are underreported because of the difficulty in ascertaining them, remains to be elucidated to assist in designing safer systems.

Using Literal Text From the Death Certificate to Enhance Mortality Statistics: Characterizing Drug Involvement in Deaths.

Objectives-This report describes the development and use of a method for analyzing the literal text from death certificates to enhance national mortality statistics on drug-involved deaths. Drug-involved deaths include drug overdose deaths as well as other deaths where, according to death certificate literal text, drugs were associated with or contributed to the death. Methods-The method uses final National Vital Statistics System-Mortality files linked to electronic files containing literal text information from death certificates. Software programs were designed to search the literal text from three fields of the death certificate (the cause of death from Part I, significant conditions contributing to the death from Part II, and a description of how the injury occurred from Box 43) to identify drug mentions as well as contextual information. The list of drug search terms was developed from existing drug classification systems as well as from manual review of the literal text. Literal text surrounding the identified drug search terms was analyzed to ascertain the context. Drugs mentioned in the death certificate literal text were assumed to be involved in the death unless contextual information suggested otherwise (e.g., "METHICILLIN RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS INFECTION"). The literal text analysis method was assessed by comparing the results from application of the method with results based on ICD-10 codes, and by conducting a manual review of a sample of records.

Drugs Most Frequently Involved in Drug Overdose Deaths: United States, 2010-2014.

Objectives-This report identifies the specific drugs most frequently involved in drug overdose deaths in the United States from 2010 through 2014. Methods-The 2010-2014 National Vital Statistics System mortality files were linked to electronic files containing literal text information from death certificates. Drug overdose was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision underlying cause-of-death codes X40-X44 (unintentional), X60-X64 (suicide), X85 (homicide), and Y10-Y14 (undetermined intent). Among deaths with an underlying cause of death of drug overdose, the literal text in three fields of the death certificate (i.e., the cause of death from Part I, significant conditions contributing to death from Part II, and a description of how the injury occurred from Box 43) were searched to identify drug mentions. Search term lists were developed using existing drug classification systems as well as from manual review of the literal text. The search term list was then used to identify the specific drugs involved in overdose deaths. Descriptive statistics were reported for drug overdose deaths involving the 10 most frequently mentioned drugs on death certificates. Tables and figures presenting information on the specific drugs involved in deaths are based on deaths with mention of at least one specific drug on the death certificate. Results-From 2010 through 2014, the number of drug overdose deaths per year increased 23%, from 38,329 in 2010 to 47,055 in 2014. During this time period, the percentage of drug overdose deaths involving at least one specific drug increased, from 67% in 2010 to 78% in 2014. Among drug overdose deaths with at least one drug specified on the death certificate, the 10 drugs most frequently involved in overdose deaths included the following opioids: heroin, oxycodone, methadone, morphine, hydrocodone, and fentanyl; the following benzodiazepines: alprazolam and diazepam; and the following stimulants: cocaine and methamphetamine. During this 5-year period, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths involving heroin more than tripled, and the rate of drug overdose deaths involving methamphetamine more than doubled. The rate of drug overdose deaths involving fentanyl more than doubled in a single year (from 2013 to 2014). In 2014, of the 36,667 drug overdose deaths involving at least one specific drug, 52% of these deaths specified one drug, 38% specified two or three drugs, and 11% specified four or more drugs. Conclusions-Analysis of the literal text from death certificates can be used to identify patterns in the specific drugs most frequently involved in drug overdose deaths. From 2010 through 2014, the top 10 drugs involved were the same, but the relative ranking and age-adjusted rates for deaths involving these drugs changed. Literal text analysis also revealed that many drug overdose deaths involved multiple drugs. Findings should be interpreted in light of the improvement in the quality of the data that resulted from better reporting of specific drugs on death certificates from 2010 through 2014. Relative increases in the death rates involving specific drugs and the rankings of these drugs may be affected by improvements in reporting, real increases in the numbers of death, or both.

A decade of Australian methotrexate dosing errors.

OBJECTIVE: Accidental daily dosing of methotrexate can result in life-threatening toxicity. We investigated methotrexate dosing errors reported to the National Coronial Information System (NCIS), the Therapeutic Goods Administration Database of Adverse Event Notifications (TGA DAEN) and Australian Poisons Information Centres (PICs). DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective review of coronial cases in the NCIS (2000-2014), and of reports to the TGA DAEN (2004-2014) and Australian PICs (2004-2015). Cases were included if dosing errors were accidental, with evidence of daily dosing on at least 3 consecutive days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Events per year, dose, consecutive days of methotrexate administration, reasons for the error, clinical features. RESULTS: Twenty-two deaths linked with methotrexate were identified in the NCIS, including seven cases in which erroneous daily dosing was documented. Methotrexate medication error was listed in ten cases in the DAEN, including two deaths. Australian PIC databases contained 92 cases, with a worrying increase seen during 2014-2015. Reasons for the errors included patient misunderstanding and incorrect packaging of dosette packs by pharmacists. The recorded clinical effects of daily dosage were consistent with those previously reported for methotrexate toxicity. CONCLUSION: Dosing errors with methotrexate can be lethal and continue to occur despite a number of safety initiatives in the past decade. Further strategies to reduce these preventable harms need to be implemented and evaluated. Recent suggestions include further changes in packet size, mandatory weekly dosing labelling on packaging, improving education, and including alerts in prescribing and dispensing software.

Use of Contraindicated Antiplatelet Medications in the Setting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.

BACKGROUND: Several antiplatelet medications used during and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are contraindicated for specific patient groups. A broad assessment of contraindicated medication use and associated clinical outcomes is not well described. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using national Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program data for all PCI between 2007 and 2013, we evaluated patients with contraindications to commonly used antiplatelet medications during and after PCI, defined in accordance with package inserts. Adjusted association between contraindicated medication use and outcomes of periprocedural bleeding and 30-day mortality were assessed using Cox proportional hazards with inverse probability weighting. Among 64 294 patients undergoing PCI, 11 315(17.6%) had a contraindication to a common antiplatelet medication and 737 (6.5%) of these patients received a contraindicated medication. In unadjusted analyses, any contraindicated medication use was associated with both increased bleeding and 30-day mortality. In adjusted models, contraindicated abciximab use in patients with thrombocytopenia (hazard ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-3.16) and in patients with a previous stroke (hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.71) remained significantly associated with increased bleeding. Contraindicated abciximab use was not significantly associated with 30-day mortality in adjusted models. Use of eptifibatide in dialysis patients was not significantly associated with an increased risk of bleeding or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this national cohort, ≈18% of patients undergoing PCI had contraindications to common antiplatelet medications. Approximately 6% of those patients received a contraindicated medication with attendant bleeding risk, although this did not translate into significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality. Continued efforts to reduce contraindicated medication use may help avoid periprocedural complications.

In the Aftermath: Attitudes of Anesthesiologists to Supportive Strategies After an Unexpected Intraoperative Patient Death.

BACKGROUND: Although most anesthesiologists will have 1 catastrophic perioperative event or more during their careers, there has been little research on their attitudes to assistive strategies after the event. There are wide-ranging emotional consequences for anesthesiologists involved in an unexpected intraoperative patient death, particularly if the anesthesiologist made an error. We used a between-groups survey study design to ask whether there are different attitudes to assistive strategies when a hypothetical patient death is caused by a drug error versus not caused by an error. First, we explored attitudes to generalized supportive strategies. Second, we examined our hypothesis that the presence of an error causing the hypothetical patient death would increase the perceived social stigma and self-stigma of help-seeking. Finally, we examined the strategies to assist help-seeking. METHODS: An anonymous, mailed, self-administered survey was conducted with 1600 consultant anesthesiologists in Australia on the mailing list of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. The participants were randomized into "error" versus "no-error" groups for the hypothetical scenario of patient death due to anaphylaxis. Nonparametric, descriptive, parametric, and inferential tests were used for data analysis. P' is used where P values were corrected for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There was a usable response rate of 48.9%. When an error had caused the hypothetical patient death, participants were more likely to agree with 4 of the 5 statements about support, including need for time off (P' = 0.003), counseling (P' < 0.001), a formal strategy for assistance (P' < 0.001), and the anesthesiologist not performing further cases that day (P' = 0.047). There were no differences between groups in perceived self-stigma (P = 0.98) or social stigma (P = 0.15) of seeking counseling, whether or not an error had caused the hypothetical patient death. Finally, when an error had caused the patient death, participants were more likely to agree with 2 of the 5 statements about help-seeking, including the need for a formal, hospital-based process that provides information on where to obtain professional counseling (P' = 0.006) and the availability of after-hours counseling services (P' = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Our participants were more likely to agree with assistive strategies such as not performing further work that day, time off, counseling, formal support strategies, and availability of after-hours counseling services, when the hypothetical patient death from anaphylaxis was due to an error. The perceived stigma toward attending counseling was not affected by the presence or absence of an error as the cause of the patient death, disproving our hypothesis.

Adecuación de la historia farmacoterapéutica y errores de conciliación en un servicio de urgencias / Accuracy in the medication history and reconciliation errors in the emergency department

Fundamento y objetivo: Evaluar la calidad de la historia farmacoterapéutica registrada en un servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH) de un hospital de tercer nivel. Determinar la prevalencia de errores de conciliación (EC). Material y método: Estudio unicéntrico, prospectivo y de intervención. Se comparó la lista de medicación habitual obtenida por un farmacéutico frente a la registrada por el médico para identificar discrepancias. Posteriormente, se comparó la medicación habitual con la prescripción activa (SUH). Todas las discrepancias no justificadas se comentaron con el médico para determinar si se trataba de un EC. Se realizó un análisis univariante para identificar factores asociados con la aparición de EC. Resultados: El farmacéutico identificó un mayor número de fármacos habituales por paciente respecto al médico (6,89 frente a 5,70; p < 0,05). Únicamente el 39% de los fármacos identificados por el médico se registraron correctamente en la historia clínica. La principal causa de discrepancia fue la omisión de información a nivel de fármaco (39%) o de posología (33%). Se detectaron 157 EC que afectaron a 85 pacientes (43%), mayoritariamente por omisión (62%). Los principales factores asociados a EC fueron la edad y la polimedicación. La presencia de un cuidador/familiar responsable de la medicación fue un factor protector. No se encontró asociación entre discrepancias en el registro y EC. Conclusiones: La recogida de la historia farmacoterapéutica es un proceso susceptible de mejora. El farmacéutico puede ayudar a obtener una anamnesis de calidad e incrementar la seguridad del paciente interceptando EC. Es necesario mejorar los sistemas de información para evitar este tipo de incidentes (AU)

Background and objective: To assess the accuracy of pharmaceutical anamnesis obtained at the Emergency Department (ED) of a tertiary referral hospital and to determine the prevalence of medication reconciliation errors (RE). Material and method: This was a single-center, prospective, interventional study. The home medication list obtained by a pharmacist was compared with the one recorded by a doctor to identify inaccuracies. Subsequently, the home medication list was compared with the active prescription at the ED. All unexplained discrepancies were checked with the doctor in charge to evaluate if a RE has occurred. An univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with RE. Results: The pharmacist identified a higher number of drugs than doctors (6.89 versus 5.70; P < 0.05). Only 39% of the drugs obtained by doctors were properly written down in the patient's record. The main cause of discrepancy was omission of information regarding the name of the drug (39%) or its dosage (33%). One hundred and fifty-seven RE were identified and they affected 85 patients (43%), mainly related to information omission (62%). Age and polymedication were identified as main risk factors of RE. The presence of a caregiver or relative in the ED was judged to be a protective factor. No relationship was found between inaccuracies in the registries and RE. Conclusions: The process of obtaining a proper pharmaceutical anamnesis still needs improvement. The pharmacist may play a role in the process of obtaining a good quality anamnesis and increase patient safety by detecting RE. Better information systems are needed to avoid this type of incidents (AU)

Avoidability of hospital deaths and association with hospital-wide mortality ratios: retrospective case record review and regression analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of avoidable deaths (due to acts of omission and commission) in acute hospital trusts in England and to determine the association with the trust's hospital-wide standardised mortality ratio assessed using the two commonly used methods--the hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) and the summary hospital level mortality indicator (SHMI). DESIGN: Retrospective case record review of deaths. SETTING: 34 English acute hospital trusts (10 in 2009 and 24 in 2012/13) randomly selected from across the spectrum of HSMR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Avoidable death, defined as those with at least a 50% probability of avoidability in view of trained medical reviewers. Association of avoidable death proportion with the HSMR and the SHMI assessed using regression coefficients, to estimate the increase in avoidable death proportion for a one standard deviation increase in standardised mortality ratio. PARTICIPANTS: 100 randomly selected hospital deaths from each trust. RESULTS: The proportion of avoidable deaths was 3.6% (95% confidence interval 3.0% to 4.3%). It was lower in 2012/13 (3.0%, 2.4% to 3.7%) than in 2009 (5.2%, 3.8% to 6.6%). This difference is subject to several factors, including reviewers' greater awareness in 2012/13 of orders not to resuscitate, patients being perceived as sicker on admission, minor differences in review form questions, and cultural changes that might have discouraged reviewers from criticising other clinicians. There was a small but statistically non-significant association between HSMR and the proportion of avoidable deaths (regression coefficient 0.3, 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 0.7). The regression coefficient was similar for both time periods (0.1 and 0.3). This implies that a difference in HSMR of between 105 and 115 would be associated with an increase of only 0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.2% to 0.7%) in the proportion of avoidable deaths. A similar weak non-significant association was observed for SHMI (regression coefficient 0.3, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The small proportion of deaths judged to be avoidable means that any metric based on mortality is unlikely to reflect the quality of a hospital. The lack of association between the proportion of avoidable deaths and hospital-wide SMRs partly reflects methodological shortcomings in both metrics. Instead, reviews of individual deaths should focus on identifying ways of improving the quality of care, whereas the use of standardised mortality ratios should be restricted to assessing the quality of care for conditions with high case fatality for which good quality clinical data exist.

Improving Patient Safety in Clinical Oncology: Applying Lessons From Normal Accident Theory.

Concerns for patient safety persist in clinical oncology. Within several nonmedical areas (eg, aviation, nuclear power), concepts from Normal Accident Theory (NAT), a framework for analyzing failure potential within and between systems, have been successfully applied to better understand system performance and improve system safety. Clinical oncology practice is interprofessional and interdisciplinary, and our therapies often have narrow therapeutic windows. Thus, many of our processes are, in NAT terms, interactively complex and tightly coupled within and across systems and are therefore prone to unexpected behaviors that can result in substantial patient harm. To improve safety at the University of North Carolina, we have applied the concepts of NAT to our practice to better understand our systems' behavior and adopted strategies to reduce complexity and coupling. Furthermore, recognizing that we cannot eliminate all risks, we have stressed safety mindfulness among our staff to further promote safety. Many specific examples are provided herein. The lessons from NAT are translatable to clinical oncology and may help to promote safety.

Segurança do paciente na administração de quimioterapia antineoplásica: uma revisão integrativa / Patient Safety in Administering Antineoplastic Chemoteraphy: an Integrative Review

Introdução: A segurança do paciente pode ser definida como a redução a um mínimo aceitável do risco de um dano desnecessário ocorrer associado aos cuidados em saúde. Os erros em uma ou mais etapas no processo de quimioterápicos podem ter consequências graves para os pacientes, desde toxicidades inesperadas até o óbito. Objetivo: Identificar as estratégias recomendadas na literatura que visam à segurança do paciente na administração de quimioterapia antineoplásica. Método: Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura que utilizou como critérios de inclusão: publicações em português, inglês e espanhol, disponíveis gratuitamente nas bases de dados CINAHL e PUBMED em textos completos no período de 2000 a 2013. Resultados: A busca resultou em 1.385 publicações, sendo selecionadas 13 publicações científicas internacionais que atendiam ao objetivo do estudo. Discussão: Nos artigos analisados, os autores enfatizam os protocolos, procedimentos e o processo de administração de quimioterapia, estabelecendo condutas únicas, de forma clara, para a manutenção da segurança em todas as etapas. Conclusão: A utilização de boas práticas não é suficiente para evitar que falhas ou erros na administração de quimioterápicos ocorram. Torna-se necessária a criação de uma cultura de segurança voltada para o compartilhamento da responsabilidade e a implementação de políticas e normas institucionais, a fim de melhorar a segurança, ambas elaboradas a partir de uma equipe multiprofissional com características interdisciplinares.