scholarly journals CDSS‐Assisted Pharmacy Intervention Reduces Feeding Tube–Related Medication Errors in Hospitalized Patients: A Focus on Medication Suitable for Feeding‐Tube Administration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur T. M. Wasylewicz ◽  
Renske J. B. Grinsven ◽  
Jessica M. W. Bikker ◽  
Hendrikus H. M. Korsten ◽  
Toine C. G. Egberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Feeding Tube ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Pharmacy Intervention

scholarly journals High Frequency of Non-Compliance with Quality Indicators of Enteral and Parenteral Nutritional Therapy in Hospitalized Patients

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 2408
Author(s):  
Daiane Aparecida Nogueira ◽  
Lara Princia Ferreira ◽  
Renata Paniago Andrade de Lúcia ◽  
Geórgia das Graças Pena
Keyword(s):  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Nutritional Therapy ◽  
Feeding Tube ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Nutrition Support ◽  
Real Life Situation ◽  
A Prospective Study

Quality indicators in nutritional therapy (QINT) are measures of the effectiveness and quality of nutrition support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency of the QINT adequacy of Enteral Nutritional Therapy (EN) and/or Parenteral (PN) in hospitalized patients and identify the best indicators according to health professionals. A prospective study was performed, including data from patients aged 18 years or over admitted to clinical or surgical wards. The patients who had received EN and/or PN were followed from the first day of nutritional prescription until discharge. Twelve indicators were calculated, as recommended by the literature. Regarding professional opinion, the QINT adequacy was evaluated by observing its utility, simplicity, objectivity, and cost. Of the 727 hospitalized patients, 101 were on EN and/or PN. Regarding the 12 QINT evaluated, only 25% (3) achieved the goals: involuntary withdrawal of enteral feeding tube (0.01%); feeding tube occlusion or withdrawal per occlusion (0%); the measurement of energy and protein requirements (92%). A high frequency of non-compliance (75% of QINT) was observed in clinical and surgical patients on EN and/or PN. With knowledge of the six best indicators chosen by health professionals in this service, it will be possible to elaborate protocols according to the real-life situation in the institution.

Predictors of Medication Errors Among Elderly Hospitalized Patients

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra Matsen Picone ◽  
Marita G. Titler ◽  
Joanne Dochterman ◽  
Leah Shever ◽  
Taikyoung Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Elderly Hospitalized Patients

An In-Depth Analysis of Medication Errors in Hospitalized Patients with HIV

2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann M Snyder ◽  
Kenneth Klinker ◽  
Joanne J Orrick ◽  
Jennifer Janelle ◽  
Almut G Winterstein
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Depth Analysis

Incidence and treatment costs attributable to medication errors in hospitalized patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 428-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Insun Choi ◽  
Seung-Mi Lee ◽  
Linda Flynn ◽  
Chul-min Kim ◽  
Saerom Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Hospitalized Patients

Frequency of HIV-Related Medication Errors and Associated Risk Factors in Hospitalized Patients

2008 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonak D Pastakia ◽  
Amanda H Corbett ◽  
Ralph H Raasch ◽  
Sonia Napravnik ◽  
Todd A Correll
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Associated Risk Factors

Medication Errors in HIV-Infected Hospitalized Patients: A Pharmacist's Impact

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 953-960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin H Eginger ◽  
Laura L Yarborough ◽  
Lisa DeVito Inge ◽  
Sharon A Basile ◽  
Donald Floresca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Hospitalized Patients

Caution when Seeking Information about Palladone; Patients Need Education about Proper Use of Inhalers; Shaken, Not Stirred; Pharmacy Intervention Trigger; Hot Flashes from Hot Patches

2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
pp. 556-557
Author(s):  
Michael R. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Hot Flashes ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Inservice Training ◽  
Safe Medication ◽  
Pharmacy Intervention ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Fail Safe ◽  
E Mail

These medication errors have occurred in health care facilities at least once. They will happen again—perhaps where you work. Through education and alertness of personnel and procedural safeguards, they can be avoided. You should consider publishing accounts of errors in your newsletters and/or presenting them in your inservice training programs. Your assistance is required to continue this feature. The reports described here were received through the USP Medication Errors Reporting Program (MERP), which is presented in cooperation with the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. If you have encountered medication errors and would like to report them, you may call USP toll-free, 24 hours a day, at 800-233-7767 (800-23-ERROR). Any reports published by ISMP will be anonymous. Comments are also invited; the writers’ names will be published if desired. ISMP may be contacted at the address shown below. Errors, close calls, or hazardous conditions may be reported through the ISMP ( www.ismp.org ) or USP ( www.usp.org ) Web sites or communicated directly to ISMP by calling 800-FAIL-SAFE or via E-mail at [email protected] . ISMP guarantees the confidentiality and security of the information received and respects reporters’ wishes as to the level of detail included in publications.

Accidental Injuries of Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

1993 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Groves ◽  
Philip W. Lavori ◽  
Jerrold F. Rosenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Emergency Ward ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
Blind Fashion

AbstractEight hundred and six medical and surgical patients who were hospitalized via the emergency ward were followed over their entire inpatient stays and rated in anterograde, double-blind fashion for inpatient incidents (falls, medication errors, other). Injuries were minor but affected 2.2% of admissions, a figure which is strikingly similar to studies in other hospitals. There was a statistical trend toward a higher-than-normal risk of hazardous in-hospital incidents for males age 20 to 40 admitted because of injury and for medically ill females over 60 years old.

scholarly journals MON-664 Are Hospitals Doing Enough in Caring for Patients with Diabetes?Results of a Landmark Survey: Current State of Inpatient Diabetes Care and Glycemic Management

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew S Rhinehart ◽  
Melanie Mabrey ◽  
Valerie Garrett
Keyword(s):  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Sliding Scale ◽  
Basal Bolus ◽  
Glycemic Management

Abstract BACKGROUND On average, 1 of every 3 hospitalized patients — the majority with diabetes — requires insulin to control blood glucose during their stay. Although widely prescribed and absolutely necessary, insulin is inherently dangerous: 50% of all medication errors involve insulin, including 1/3 of all fatal medication errors. Results of a nationwide survey indicate that prioritization of glycemic control is lacking, which hinders high reliability and increases risk of morbidity and mortality. METHODS Healthcare professionals who serve in roles involving diabetes care and glycemic management were invited to participate in an online survey. To qualify, an initial question that read: “Where do you work?” had to be answered “hospital or health system with focus on inpatients” (those who answered “physician’s office or clinic with focus on outpatients” were disqualified). There were a total of 619 respondents from 408 U.S. hospitals. KEY RESULTS • The consensus among respondents is that fear of hypoglycemia has a strong influence on the prescribing of insulin (i.e., causes non-prescribing or lack of intensification following hyperglycemia). On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘very little if any influence’ and 5 being ‘considerable influence,’ the average weighted score was 3.45. • About 70% of respondents are of the opinion glycemic control is ‘extremely important’ or ‘very important’ to nurses and physicians, whereas about 48% believe this to be true of senior clinical executives and 25% believe this to be true of non-clinical senior executives. • Only 24% of respondents maintain their hospital uses primarily basal bolus for subcutaneous insulin therapy. Close to 34% maintain their hospital uses primarily sliding scale and 42% maintain their hospital uses sliding scale and basal bolus equally as often. The top three barriers to full adoption of basal bolus insulin are: (1) inadequate prescriber knowledge about basal-bolus-correction regimens, (2) beliefs that sliding scale is acceptable practice and not harmful, and (3) difficulties coordinating glucose monitoring, insulin administration and meal delivery. • Slightly more than 2/3 of respondents work at a hospital that routinely tracks and reports the rate of hypoglycemia (on a monthly or quarterly basis). Of those, 54% use a threshold of 60 and/or 70 mg/dL exclusively, which encompasses all episodes of hypoglycemia without accounting for severity; only 24% use thresholds of 60 and/or 70 mg/dL as well as thresholds of 40, 50 and/or 54 mg/dL, allowing episodes of greater severity to be isolated for analysis and quality improvement. CONCLUSION Results of the survey indicate better care, specifically better glycemic control, is needed for hospitalized patients with diabetes. With the shift from volume to value and a stronger focus on quality and safety, this data should be catalyst for making glycemic control a strategic imperative.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document