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: 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.
Objective: The objective of this study was to develop interventions to reduce percentage of patients with one or more medication errors during discharge.
Methods: A pharmacist-led quality improvement (QI) program over 6 months was conducted in medical wards at a tertiary public hospital. Percentage of patients discharge with one or more medication errors was reviewed in the pre-intervention and four main improvements were developed: increase the ratio of pharmacist to patient, prioritize discharge prescription order within office hours, complete discharge medication reconciliation by ward pharmacist, set up a Centralized Discharge Medication Pre-packing Unit. Percentage of patients with one or more medication errors in both pre- and post-intervention phase were monitored using process control chart.
Results: With the implementation of the QI program, the percentage of patients with one or more medication errors during discharge that were corrected by pharmacists significantly increased from 77.6% to 95.9% (p<0.001). Percentage of patients with one or more clinically significant error was similar in both pre and post-QI with an average of 24.8%.
Conclusions: Increasing ratio of pharmacist to patient to complete discharge medication reconciliation during discharge significantly recorded a reduction in the percentage of patients with one or more medication errors.