Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Implementation of safeguards to improve patient safety in chemotherapy
Huertas-Fernández, MJ; Martínez-Bautista, MJ; Rodríguez-Mateos, ME; Zarzuela-Ramírez, M; Muñoz-Lucero, T; Baena-Cañada, JM.
Affiliation
  • Huertas-Fernández, MJ; Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Clinical Pharmacy Management Unit. Cádiz. Spain
  • Martínez-Bautista, MJ; Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Clinical Pharmacy Management Unit. Cádiz. Spain
  • Rodríguez-Mateos, ME; Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Clinical Pharmacy Management Unit. Cádiz. Spain
  • Zarzuela-Ramírez, M; Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Preventive Medicine Department. Cádiz. Spain
  • Muñoz-Lucero, T; Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Medical Oncology Department. Cádiz. Spain
  • Baena-Cañada, JM; Puerta del Mar University Hospital. Medical Oncology Department. Cádiz. Spain
Clin. transl. oncol. (Print) ; 19(9): 1099-1106, sept. 2017. tab, ilus
Article in English | IBECS | ID: ibc-165211
Responsible library: ES1.1
Localization: BNCS
ABSTRACT
Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of safeguards introduced in the process of using cytostatic agents for increasing the safety of oncology patients. Methods. Prospective hospital study conducted in two stages, before and after the implementation of safeguards staff training, standardized procedures, computerized prescription, pharmaceutical validation, implementation of bar codes, and a new manual on drug interactions. Medication errors (MEs) were actively recorded during the process of administering chemotherapy in the Medical Oncology Department. The study classified MEs by the stage of the medication process in which they occurred and assessed their severity. Results. 500 patients, 250 before implementing safeguards and 250 afterward, were included in this study . Out of all patients included before, 43.1% had at least 1 error, compared to 27% of those included later. The number of MEs detected before and after was 144 vs. 95 125 vs. 55 prescription errors, 2 vs. 5 validation errors, 14 vs. 4 preparation errors, 3 vs. 1 dispensation errors and 0 vs. 30 administration errors. The number of MEs that reached the patient before and after safeguard implementation was 16.7% vs. 6.3%. After the safeguards were introduced, all MEs that could have caused harm or required monitoring of some kind were prevented. Conclusions. Implementing safeguards in the hospital’s cytostatic treatment cycle is useful for preventing MEs. Computerized prescription, pharmaceutical validation, and the creation/dissemination of proper work procedures are effective barriers that keep MEs from reaching the patient. Administering chemotherapy with a bar-code system facilitates detection error detection at this stage of the cycle and prevents them from reaching the patient (AU)
RESUMEN
No disponible
Subject(s)
Search on Google
Collection: National databases / Spain Database: IBECS Main subject: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions / Cytostatic Agents / Patient Safety / Medication Errors / Antineoplastic Agents Type of study: Evaluation study / Practice guideline / Observational study / Risk factors Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin. transl. oncol. (Print) Year: 2017 Document type: Article Institution/Affiliation country: Puerta del Mar University Hospital/Spain
Search on Google
Collection: National databases / Spain Database: IBECS Main subject: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions / Cytostatic Agents / Patient Safety / Medication Errors / Antineoplastic Agents Type of study: Evaluation study / Practice guideline / Observational study / Risk factors Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin. transl. oncol. (Print) Year: 2017 Document type: Article Institution/Affiliation country: Puerta del Mar University Hospital/Spain
...