OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate and critically appraise the evidence on the prevalence, causes and severity of medication administration errors (MAEs) amongst neonates in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs).
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching nine electronic databases and the grey literature for studies, without language and publication date restrictions. The pooled prevalence of MAEs was estimated using a random-effects model. Data on error causation were synthesised using Reason's model of accident causation.
RESULTS: Twenty unique studies were included. Amongst direct observation studies reporting total opportunity for errors as the denominator for MAEs, the pooled prevalence was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.4-81.3, I2 = 99.5%). Whereas, the non-direct observation studies reporting medication error reports as the denominator yielded a pooled prevalence of 64.8% (95% CI 46.6-81.1, I2 = 98.2%). The common reported causes were error-provoking environments (five studies), while active failures were reported by three studies. Only three studies examined the severity of MAEs, and each utilised a different method of assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis estimating the prevalence, causes and severity of MAEs amongst neonates. There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of studies to produce a better estimate of the prevalence of MAEs amongst neonates. Important targets such as wrong administration-technique, wrong drug-preparation and wrong time errors have been identified to guide the implementation of remedial measures.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective direct observational study that will be conducted in five neonatal intensive care units. A minimum sample size of 820 drug preparations and administrations will be observed. Data including patient characteristics, drug preparation-related and administration-related information and other procedures will be recorded. After each round of observation, the observers will compare his/her observations with the prescriber's medication order, hospital policies and manufacturer's recommendations to determine whether MAE has occurred. To ensure reliability, the error identification will be independently performed by two clinical pharmacists after the completion of data collection for all study sites. Any disagreements will be discussed with the research team for consensus. To reduce overfitting and improve the quality of risk predictions, we have prespecified a priori the analytical plan, that is, prespecifying the candidate predictor variables, handling missing data and validation of the developed model. The model's performance will also be assessed. Finally, various modes of presentation formats such as a simplified scoring tool or web-based electronic risk calculators will be considered.
OBJECTIVE: To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk.
EXPOSURES: Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast and ovarian cancer risks.
RESULTS: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.