Analysis of medication consultation networks and reporting medication errors: a mixed methods study.
ABSTRACT: To examine characteristics of verbal consultation about medication within social networks of hospital inpatient medication system, and their associations with medication error reporting.The setting was a 90-bed provincial district hospital with 4 wards, 7 physicians, 5 pharmacists, 44 nurses, 5 pharmacist assistants, and 4 unskilled ancillary workers. A mixed method comprising (i) a prospective observational study for investigating incidences and the nature of reporting medication errors, and (ii) a social network analysis for patterns of interaction.Out of 5296 prescriptions, 132 medication errors were reported during the one month study period: an incidence rate of 2.5%. Every incident of medication errors was formally documented through pharmacists. The most frequent medication errors were in pre-transcribing (n =?54; 40.9%). The pharmacists were central in the whole network of consultation on medication with the mean in-degree centrality of 35 (SD 14.9) and mean out-degree centrality of 15.4 (SD 11.1). Two bridging participants were identified who were influential communicators connecting the network (betweenness centrality). Medication error reporting were influenced by (i) participants whose advice is sought and viewed as trustworthy (in-degree centrality; p
Project description:BACKGROUND:Reporting of medication errors is one of the essential mechanisms to identify risky health care systems and practices that lead to medication errors. Unreported medication errors are a real issue; one of the identified causes is a burdensome medication error reporting system. An anonymous and user-friendly mobile app for reporting medication errors could be an alternative method of reporting medication error in busy health care settings. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this paper is to report usability testing of the Medication Error Reporting App (MERA), a mobile app for reporting medication errors anonymously. METHODS:Quantitative and qualitative methods were employed involving 45 different testers (pharmacists, doctors, and nurses) from a large tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Quantitative data was retrieved using task performance and rating of MERA and qualitative data were retrieved through focus group discussions. Three sessions, with 15 testers each session, were conducted from January to March 2018. RESULTS:The majority of testers were pharmacists (23/45, 51%), female (35/45, 78%), and the mean age was 36 (SD 9) years. A total of 135 complete reports were successfully submitted by the testers (three reports per tester) and 79.2% (107/135) of the reports were correct. There was significant improvement in mean System Usability Scale scores in each session of the development process (P<.001) and mean time to report medication errors using the app was not significantly different between each session (P=.70) with an overall mean time of 6.7 (SD 2.4) minutes. Testers found the app easy to use, but doctors and nurses were unfamiliar with terms used especially medication process at which error occurred and type of error. Although, testers agreed the app can be used in the future for reporting, they were apprehensive about security, validation, and abuse of feedback featured in the app. CONCLUSIONS:MERA can be used to report medication errors easily by various health care personnel and it has the capacity to provide feedback on reporting. However, education on medication error reporting should be provided to doctors and nurses in Malaysia and the security of the app needs to be established to boost reporting by this method.
Project description:Background Errors in discharge prescriptions are problematic. When hospital pharmacists write discharge prescriptions improvements are seen in the quality and efficiency of discharge. There is limited information on the incidence of errors in pharmacists' medication orders. Objective To investigate the extent and clinical significance of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders. Setting 1000-bed teaching hospital in London, UK. Method Pharmacists in this London hospital routinely write discharge medication orders as part of the clinical pharmacy service. Convenient days, based on researcher availability, between October 2013 and January 2014 were selected. Pre-registration pharmacists reviewed all discharge medication orders written by pharmacists on these days and identified discrepancies between the medication history, inpatient chart, patient records and discharge summary. A senior clinical pharmacist confirmed the presence of an error. Each error was assigned a potential clinical significance rating (based on the NCCMERP scale) by a physician and an independent senior clinical pharmacist, working separately. Main outcome measure Incidence of errors in pharmacist-written discharge medication orders. Results 509 prescriptions, written by 51 pharmacists, containing 4258 discharge medication orders were assessed (8.4 orders per prescription). Ten prescriptions (2%), contained a total of ten erroneous orders (order error rate-0.2%). The pharmacist considered that one error had the potential to cause temporary harm (0.02% of all orders). The physician did not rate any of the errors with the potential to cause harm. Conclusion The incidence of errors in pharmacists' discharge medication orders was low. The quality, safety and policy implications of pharmacists routinely writing discharge medication orders should be further explored.
Project description:BACKGROUND: An accurate medication list at hospital admission is essential for the evaluation and further treatment of patients. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency, type and predictors of errors in medication history, and to evaluate the extent to which standard care corrects these errors. METHODS: A descriptive study was carried out in two medical wards in a Swedish hospital using Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM)-based medication reconciliation. A clinical pharmacist identified each patient's most accurate pre-admission medication list by conducting a medication reconciliation process shortly after admission. This list was then compared with the patient's medication list in the hospital medical records. Addition or withdrawal of a drug or changes to the dose or dosage form in the hospital medication list were considered medication discrepancies. Medication discrepancies for which no clinical reason could be identified (unintentional changes) were considered medication history errors. RESULTS: The final study population comprised 670 of 818 eligible patients. At least one medication history error was identified by pharmacists conducting medication reconciliations for 313 of these patients (47%; 95% CI 43-51%). The most common medication error was an omitted drug, followed by a wrong dose. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that a higher number of drugs at admission (odds ratio [OR] per 1 drug increase = 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.14; p < 0.0001) and the patient living in their own home without any care services (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.45; p = 0.042) were predictors for medication history errors at admission. The results further indicated that standard care by non-pharmacist ward staff had partly corrected the errors in affected patients by four days after admission, but a considerable proportion of the errors made in the initial medication history at admission remained undetected by standard care (OR for medication errors detected by pharmacists' medication reconciliation carried out on days 4-11 compared to days 0-1 = 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.91; p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pharmacists conducting LIMM-based medication reconciliations have a high potential for correcting errors in medication history for all patients. In an older Swedish population, those prescribed many drugs seem to benefit most from admission medication reconciliation.
Project description:Background:Multiple medication changes during hospitalization increase the risk of errors upon discharge. Community pharmacists may face barriers to providing pharmaceutical care because of the lack of clinical information and communication from hospitals. Studies implementing handover to community pharmacists upon hospital discharge reported improved patient outcomes, but interventions were time-consuming. Methods:One-on-one interviews and a focus group were conducted to identify community pharmacists' barriers to providing care to patients recently discharged from hospital and to determine their preferences for hospital discharge prescriptions. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive semantic approach. Results:Four one-on-one interviews and an 8-participant focus group were conducted. Participants described barriers to providing care to discharged patients, including lack of communication, incomplete prescriptions, and limited clinical information. Participants identified that the most valuable information to include comprised laboratory values, hospital contact information and annotation of medication changes. These items would improve their abilities to provide timely and high-quality pharmaceutical care. Interpretation:Our results were similar to prior literature identifying a lack of communication and clinical information as barriers to providing care to recently discharged patients. Unexpectedly, study participants did not rate medication indication as a strongly preferred information item. Conclusions:Hospital discharge prescriptions lack information, which makes it challenging for community pharmacists to provide pharmaceutical care. Discharge prescriptions should include additional clinical information. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2020;153:xx-xx.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing numbers of older people are receiving support with medicines management from community nursing services (CNSs) to enable them to live in their own homes. Little is known about these people and the support they receive. OBJECTIVES:To explore the characteristics of older people referred for medicines management support, type of support provided, medication errors and adverse medication events (AMEs). METHODS:A retrospective observational study of a random sample of 100 older people referred to a large non-profit CNS for medicines management support over a 3-month period was conducted. Measures were: demographics, referral source, current medical problems, medicines, medication aids, types of medication authorisations used by nurses, frequency of nurse visits and type of support provided, medication errors, AMEs and interdisciplinary teamwork among community nurses, general practitioners and pharmacists. RESULTS:Older people (median 80 years) were referred for medicines support most often by hospitals (39 %). Other referrals were from families/carers, case-managers, palliative care services and general practitioners. Multiple health conditions (median 5) and medicines (median 10) were common; 66 % used ?5 medicines; 48 % used ?1 high-risk medicines-most commonly opiates, anticoagulants and insulin. Medication aids were frequently used, mostly multi-compartment dose administration aids (47 %). Most people received regular community nurse visits (?4 per week) to administer medicines or monitor medicine-taking. Only 16 % had a medication administration chart; for other clients nurses used medicine lists or letters from doctors for medication authorisation. Medication errors occurred in 41 % of people and 13 % had ?1 AME requiring medical consultation or hospitalisation; 9/13 (64 %) AMEs were potentially preventable. There was little evidence of interdisciplinary teamwork or medication review. CONCLUSION:CNS clients had multiple risk-factors for medication misadventure. Deficiencies in medicines management were identified, including low use of medication charts and interdisciplinary medication review. Strategies are needed to improve medicines management in the home-care setting.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Over a quarter of hospital prescribing errors are attributable to incomplete medication histories being obtained at the time of admission. We undertook a systematic review of studies describing the frequency, type and clinical importance of medication history errors at hospital admission.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for articles published from 1966 through April 2005 and bibliographies of papers subsequently retrieved from the search. We reviewed all published studies with quantitative results that compared prescription medication histories obtained by physicians at the time of hospital admission with comprehensive medication histories. Three reviewers independently abstracted data on methodologic features and results.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 22 studies involving a total of 3755 patients (range 33-1053, median 104). Errors in prescription medication histories occurred in up to 67% of cases: 10%- 61% had at least 1 omission error (deletion of a drug used before admission), and 13%- 22% had at least 1 commission error (addition of a drug not used before admission); 60%- 67% had at least 1 omission or commission error. Only 5 studies (n = 545 patients) explicitly distinguished between unintentional discrepancies and intentional therapeutic changes through discussions with ordering physicians. These studies found that 27%- 54% of patients had at least 1 medication history error and that 19%- 75% of the discrepancies were unintentional. In 6 of the studies (n = 588 patients), the investigators estimated that 11%-59% of the medication history errors were clinically important.<h4>Interpretation</h4>Medication history errors at the time of hospital admission are common and potentially clinically important. Improved physician training, accessible community pharmacy databases and closer teamwork between patients, physicians and pharmacists could reduce the frequency of these errors.
Project description:Purpose: To determine the impact of a pharmacist-driven medication therapy management (MTM) program for patients receiving oral chemotherapy agents. Methods: We assessed the impact of MTM consultations with a pharmacist for patients who were receiving a new prescription for an oral chemotherapy agent. Data were assessed for outcomes including (1) number of medication errors identified in electronic medical records (EMRs), (2) number of interventions performed by the pharmacist, (3) time spent on the MTM process, and (4) patient satisfaction. Data were compared between patients who received their oral chemotherapy agents from the onsite specialty pharmacy or from a mail-order pharmacy. The data were also examined for correlations, and logistic regression was utilized to determine the largest variant cofactor to create an equation for estimating the number of errors in a patient's EMR. Results: Fifteen patients received an MTM consultation, and the pharmacists identified an average of 6 medication EMR errors per patient. There was an average of 3 pharmacist-led interventions per patient. Multiple significant correlations were noted between the variables: (1) total number of prescriptions a patient was taking, (2) total number of medication errors identified, (3) time spent on the MTM process, and (4) total number of interventions performed by the pharmacist. Patient satisfaction was favorable for the program. Conclusion: The implementation of a pharmacist-driven MTM program for patients receiving a prescription for an oral chemotherapy agent had a significant impact on patient care by improving medication reconciliation, identifying drug-related problems, and strengthening pharmacist-patient interactions in the oncology clinic.
Project description:To explore and understand participants' perceptions and attitudes towards the reporting of medication errors (MEs).A qualitative study using in-depth interviews of 31 healthcare practitioners from nine publicly funded, primary care clinics in three states in peninsular Malaysia was conducted for this study. The participants included family medicine specialists, doctors, pharmacists, pharmacist assistants, nurses and assistant medical officers. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Analysis of the data was guided by the framework approach.Six themes and 28 codes were identified. Despite the availability of a reporting system, most of the participants agreed that MEs were underreported. The nature of the error plays an important role in determining the reporting. The reporting system, organisational factors, provider factors, reporter's burden and benefit of reporting also were identified.Healthcare practitioners in primary care clinics understood the importance of reporting MEs to improve patient safety. Their perceptions and attitudes towards reporting of MEs were influenced by many factors which affect the decision-making process of whether or not to report. Although the process is complex, it primarily is determined by the severity of the outcome of the errors. The participants voluntarily report the errors if they are familiar with the reporting system, what error to report, when to report and what form to use.
Project description:Purpose:Assessment of medication errors (ME) is crucial to improving the quality of health care. A questionnaire that can be used to explore pharmacists' perspectives regarding ME would be very useful as part of an ongoing process of quality improvement in patient care. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to measure perceived causes of ME and attitude towards ME reporting among pharmacists. 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.
Project description:Background:Patients at high risk of medication errors will potentially benefit most from medication reviews. An algorithm, MERIS, can identify the patients who are at highest risk of medication errors. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of performing stratified medication reviews on patients who according to MERIS were at highest risk of medication errors. Methods:A randomised controlled trial was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Patients were included at admission to the hospital and were randomised to control or intervention. The intervention consisted of stratified medication review at admission on patients with a high MERIS score. Clinical pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists performed the medication reviews; the clinical pharmacologists performed the reviews on patients with the highest MERIS score. The primary outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors during the hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included self-experienced quality of life, health-care utilisation and mortality measured at follow-up 90?days after discharge. Results:A total of 375 patients were included, of which medication reviews were performed in 64 patients. The medication reviews addressed 63 prescribing errors in 37 patients and 60 other drug-related problems. No difference in the number of prescribing errors during hospitalisation between the intervention group (n?=?165) and control group (n?=?153) was found, corresponding to 0.11 prescribing errors per drug (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.14) versus 0.13?per drug (95% CI: 0.09-0.16), respectively. No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. Conclusion:A stratified medication review approach based on the individual patient's risk of medication errors did not show impact on the chosen outcomes. Plain language summary:How does a medication review at admission affect patients who are in high risk of medication errors? Patients are at risk of medication errors at admission to hospital. Medication reviews aim to detect and solve these. Yet, due to limited resources in healthcare, it would be beneficial to detect the patients who are most at risk of medication errors and perform medication reviews on those patients.In this study we investigated whether an algorithm, MERIS, could detect patients who are at highest risk of medication errors; we also studied whether performing medication reviews on patients at highest risk of medication errors would have an effect on, for example, the number of medication errors during hospitalisation, qualify of life and number of readmissions. We included 375 patients in a Danish acute admission unit and they were divided into control group and intervention group. Patients in the intervention group received a medication review at admission if they were considered at high risk of medication errors, assessed with the aid of MERIS. In summary, 64 patients in the intervention group were most at risk of medication errors and therefore received a medication review.We conclude in the study that MERIS was useful in identifying relevant patients for medication reviews. Yet, the medication reviews performed at admission did not impact on the chosen outcomes.