METHODS: The literature relating to MEs in Southeast Asian countries was systematically reviewed in December 2014 by using; Embase, Medline, Pubmed, ProQuest Central and the CINAHL. Inclusion criteria were studies (in any languages) that investigated the incidence and the contributing factors of ME in patients of all ages.
RESULTS: The 17 included studies reported data from six of the eleven Southeast Asian countries: five studies in Singapore, four in Malaysia, three in Thailand, three in Vietnam, one in the Philippines and one in Indonesia. There was no data on MEs in Brunei, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Timor. Of the seventeen included studies, eleven measured administration errors, four focused on prescribing errors, three were done on preparation errors, three on dispensing errors and two on transcribing errors. There was only one study of reconciliation error. Three studies were interventional.
DISCUSSION: The most frequently reported types of administration error were incorrect time, omission error and incorrect dose. Staff shortages, and hence heavy workload for nurses, doctor/nurse distraction, and misinterpretation of the prescription/medication chart, were identified as contributing factors of ME. There is a serious lack of studies on this topic in this region which needs to be addressed if the issue of ME is to be fully understood and addressed.
METHODS: A retrospective review of reports received from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2012 was undertaken. Descriptive statistics method was applied.
RESULTS: A total of 17,357 MEs reported were reviewed. The majority of errors were from public-funded hospitals. Near misses were classified in 86.3 % of the errors. The majority of errors (98.1 %) had no harmful effects on the patients. Prescribing contributed to more than three-quarters of the overall errors (76.1 %). Pharmacists detected and reported the majority of errors (92.1 %). Cases of erroneous dosage or strength of medicine (30.75 %) were the leading type of error, whilst cardiovascular (25.4 %) was the most common category of drug found.
CONCLUSIONS: MERS provides rich information on the characteristics of reported MEs. Low contribution to reporting from healthcare facilities other than government hospitals and non-pharmacists requires further investigation. Thus, a feasible approach to promote MERS among healthcare providers in both public and private sectors needs to be formulated and strengthened. Preventive measures to minimise MEs should be directed to improve prescribing competency among the fallible prescribers identified.
METHODS: Conducted from February to May 2023, this study aimed to determine the relationships between perceived effectiveness and perceived ease of implementation of six nudge interventions to reduce medication errors, i.e., provider champion, provider's commitment, peer comparison, provider education, patient education and departmental feedback, and the moderating effects of seniority of job positions and clinical experience on nudge acceptability. Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling was used for data analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All six nudge strategies had significant positive relationships between perceived effectiveness and acceptability. In three out of six interventions, perceived ease of implementation was shown to have positive relationships with perceived acceptability. Only seniority of job position had a significant moderating effect on perceived ease of implementation in peer comparison intervention. Interventions that personally involve senior doctors appeared to have higher predictive accuracy than those that do not, indicating that high power-distance culture influence intervention acceptability.
CONCLUSION: For successful nudge implementations, both intrinsic properties of the interventions and the broader sociocultural context is necessary.
Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the drive-through pharmacy service in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Malaysia.
Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from July to December 2018. The questionnaire was developed and underwent thorough validation process which yielded a Cronbach's alpha reliability score of 0.9130. Satisfaction was calculated by mean percentage score (0% (dissatisfied) to 100% (satisfied). All data were analysed descriptively and thematic analysis was used in analysing open-ended question.
Results: Compliance in obtaining medication was at 96.3% with a given two-week grace collection period. Insufficient quantity of medications (33.3%) was the highest near-missed medication errors occurred at the drive-through pharmacy. The mean satisfaction percentage score for all patients were 76.6% ± 8.1. A total of 69.2% (n = 83) were "very satisfied" while 30.8% (n = 37) were "satisfied" with the service. Among the reasons for satisfaction are convenience in getting medication refills (n = 74, 62%), short waiting time (n = 75, 63%) and knowledgeable dispensers (n = 87, 73%). A handful of patients were "dissatisfied" with the opening hours (n = 14, 11.7%) and the location of the drive-through pharmacy service (n = 19, 15.8%).
Conclusion: Compliance in medication collection is acceptable within stipulated grace period. Despite low occurrence, identification of near-missed medication errors provides useful insights for future improvement of the service. Generally, our patients are satisfied with the service. However, we need to re-evaluate on the opening hours and location of the service.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A literature review was performed on issues, sources, management and approaches to HISs-induced errors. A critical review of selected models was performed in order to identify medical error dimensions and elements based on human, process, technology and organisation factors.
FINDINGS: Various error classifications have resulted in the difficulty to understand the overall error incidents. Most classifications are based on clinical processes and settings. Medical errors are attributed to human, process, technology and organisation factors that influenced and need to be aligned with each other. Although most medical errors are caused by humans, they also originate from other latent factors such as poor system design and training. Existing evaluation models emphasise different aspects of medical errors and could be combined into a comprehensive evaluation model.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Overview of the issues and discourses in HIS-induced errors could divulge its complexity and enable its causal analysis.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This paper helps in understanding various types of HIS-induced errors and promising prevention and management approaches that call for further studies and improvement leading to good practices that help prevent medical errors.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Classification of HIS-induced errors and its management, which incorporates a socio-technical and multi-disciplinary approach, could guide researchers and practitioners to conduct a holistic and systematic evaluation.