METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted over the period of 9 weeks in patients who visited the ED of Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM), Kelantan, Malaysia. Data on patient medication orders and demographic information was collected from the doctor's clerking sheet. Observations were made on nursing activities and these were documented in the data collection form. Other information related to the administration of medications were obtained from the nursing care records.
RESULTS: Observations and data collections were made for 547 patients who fulfilled the study criteria. From these, 311 patient data were randomly selected for analysis. Ninety-five patients had at least one ME. The prevalence of ME was calculated to be 30.5%. The most common types of ME were wrong time error (46.9%), unauthorized drug error (25.4%), omission error (18.5%) and dose error (9.2%). The most frequently drug associated with ME was analgesics. No adverse event was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of ME in our ED setting was moderately high. However, the majority of them did not result in any adverse event. Intervention measures are needed to prevent further occurrence.
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated Google Trends® for popular search relating to medication errors, risk management and shift work. Relative search volumes (RSVs) were evaluated from 2008 to 2018. A comparison between RSV curves related to medication errors, risk management and shift work was carried out. Then, we compared the world to Italian search.
RESULTS: RSVs were persistently higher for risk management than for medication errors (mean RSVs 069 vs. 48%) and RSVs were stably higher for medication errors than shift work (mean RSVs 48 vs. 22%). In Italy, RSVs were much lower compared to the rest of the world, and RSVs for medication errors during the study period were negligible. Mean RSVs for risk management and shift work were 3 and 25%, respectively. RSVs related to medication errors and clinical risk management were correlated (r=0.520, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Google Trends® search query volumes related to medication errors, risk management and shift work are different. RSVs for risk management are higher, and they are correlated with medication errors. Also, shift work search appears to be lower. These results should be interpreted in order to correctly evaluate how to decrease the number of medication errors in different health care related setting.
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.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the incidence of unintentional discrepancies (medication errors), types of medication errors with its potential severity of patient harm and acceptance rate of pharmaceutical care interventions.
METHODS: A four-month cross-sectional study was conducted in the general medical wards of a tertiary hospital. All newly admitted patients with at least one prescription medication were recruited via purposive sampling. Medication history assessments were done by clinical pharmacists within 24 hours or as soon as possible after admission. Pharmacist-acquired medication histories were then compared with in-patient medication charts to detect discrepancies. Verification of the discrepancies, interventions, and assessment of the potential severity of patient harm resulting from medication errors were collaboratively carried out with the treating doctors.
RESULTS: There were 990 medication discrepancies detected among 390 patients recruited in this study. One hundred and thirty-five (13.6%) medication errors were detected in 93 (23.8%) patients (1.45 errors per patient). These were mostly contributed by medication omissions (79.3%), followed by dosing errors (9.6%). Among these errors, 88.2% were considered "significant" or "serious" but none were "life-threatening." Most (83%) of the pharmaceutical interventions were accepted by the doctors.
CONCLUSION: Medication history assessment by pharmacists proved vital in detecting medication errors, mostly medication omissions. Majority of the errors intervened by pharmacists were accepted by the doctors which prevented potential significant or serious patient harm.
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.
Methods: The questionnaire was developed from the literature together with outcomes from focus group discussions. It was divided into two domains which are knowledge on ME and attitude towards ME reporting. Content validity index (I-CVI), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess test-retest reliability were obtained during the validation process.
Results: Overall Cronbach alpha for internal consistency was good (0.742), where subscale of the questionnaire demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha value 0.83 for knowledge and 0.70 for reporting behaviour attitude. The I-CVI showed good scores (knowledge=0.88) and (attitude=0.81), while ICC was moderately accepted with a value of 0.77. Two factors were extracted from the 16 items in EFA.
Conclusion: The questionnaire to assess knowledge on ME and attitude towards ME reporting among pharmacists is valid and reliable. It demonstrates good psychometric properties.
DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study consisting of a single group before-and-after study design.
SETTING: A public emergency hospital in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
PARTICIPANTS: 660 (preintervention) and then 498 (postintervention) handwritten physician orders, medication administration records (MRAs) and pharmacy dispensing sheets of 482 and 388 patients, respectively, from emergency wards, inpatient settings and the pharmacy department were reviewed.
INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a series of interactive lectures delivered by an experienced clinical pharmacist to all hospital staff members and dissemination of educational tools (flash cards, printed list of HRAs, awareness posters) designed in line with the recommendations of the Institute for Safe Medical Practices and the US Food and Drug Administration. The duration of intervention was from April to May 2011.
MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction in the incidence of HRAs use from the preintervention to postintervention study period.
FINDINGS: The five most common abbreviations recorded prior to the interventions were 'IJ for injection' (28.6%), 'SC for subcutaneous' (17.4%), drug name and dose running together (9.7%), 'OD for once daily' (5.8%) and 'D/C for discharge' (4.3%). The incidence of the use of HRAs was highest in discharge prescriptions and dispensing records (72.7%) followed by prescriptions from in-patient wards (47.3%). After the intervention, the overall incidence of HRA was significantly reduced by 52% (ie, 53.6% vs 25.5%; p=0.001). In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of HRAs across all three settings: the pharmacy department (72.7% vs 39.3%), inpatient settings (47.3% vs 23.3%) and emergency wards (40.9% vs 10.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led educational interventions can significantly reduce the use of HRAs by healthcare providers. Future research should investigate the long-term effectiveness of such educational interventions through a randomised controlled trial.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.