The Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and Adverse Events Related to Preadmission Medications When Patients Are Admitted to an Orthopedic Inpatient Unit: An Observational Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Tran ◽  
Simone E. Taylor ◽  
Andrew Hardidge ◽  
Elise Mitri ◽  
Parnaz Aminian ◽  
...  

Background: Medication errors commonly occur when patients move from the community into hospital. Whereas medication reconciliation by pharmacists can detect errors, delays in undertaking this can increase the risk that patients receive incorrect admission medication regimens. Orthopedic patients are an at-risk group because they are often elderly and use multiple medications. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence and nature of medication errors when patients are admitted to an orthopedic unit where pharmacists routinely undertake postprescribing medication reconciliation. Methods: A 10-week retrospective observational study was conducted at a major metropolitan hospital in Australia. Medication records of orthopedic inpatients were evaluated to determine the number of prescribing and administration errors associated with patients’ preadmission medications and the number of related adverse events that occurred within 72 hours of admission. Results: Preadmission, 198 patients were taking at least 1 regular medication, of whom 176 (88.9%) experienced at least 1 medication error. The median number of errors per patient was 6 (interquartile range 3-10). Unintended omission of a preadmission medication was the most common prescribing error (87.4%). There were 17 adverse events involving 24 medications in 16 (8.1%) patients that were potentially related to medication errors; 6 events were deemed moderate consequence (moderate injury or harm, increased length of stay, or cancelled/delayed treatment), and the remainder were minor. Conclusion and Relevance: Medication errors were common when orthopedic patients were admitted to hospital, despite postprescribing pharmacist medication reconciliation. Some of these errors led to patient harm. Interventions that ensure that medications are prescribed correctly at admission are required.

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luana de Rezende Spalla ◽  
Selma Rodrigues de Castilho

ABSTRACT One of the current barriers proposed to avoid possible medication errors, and consequently harm to patients, is the medication reconciliation, a process in which drugs used by patients prior to hospitalization can be compared with those prescribed in the hospital. This study describes the results of a pharmacist based reconciliation conducted during six months in clinical units of a university hospital. Fourteen patients (23.33%) had some kind of problem related to medicine. The majority (80%) of medication errors were due to medication omission. Pharmaceutical interventions acceptance level was 90%. The results suggest that pharmacists based reconciliation can have a relevant role in preventing medication errors and adverse events. Moreover, the detailed interview, conducted by the pharmacist, is able to rescue important information regarding the use of drugs, allowing to avoid medications errors and patient injury.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bintang Marsondang Rambe

Latar Belakang Keselamatan pasien (patient safety) rumah sakit adalah suatu sistem dimana rumah sakit membuat asuhan pasien lebih aman yang meliputi assessment risiko, identifikasi dan pengelolaan hal yang berhubungan dengan risiko pasien, pelaporan dan analisis insiden, kemampuan belajar dari insiden dan tindak lanjutnya serta implementasi solusi untuk meminimalkan timbulnya risiko dan mencegah terjadinya cedera yang disebabkan oleh kesalahan akibat melaksanakan suatu tindakan atau tidak mengambil tindakan yang seharusnya diambil yang dilakukan oleh perawat (Kemenkes, 2011).Salah satu kesalahan yang dapat merugikan pasien adalah medication error. Menurut WHO (2016) medication error adalah setiap kejadian yang dapat dicegah yang menyebabkan penggunaan obat yang tidak tepat yang menyebabkan bahaya kepasien, dimana obat berada dalam kendali profesional perawatan kesehatan. proses terjadi medication error dimulai dari tahap prescribing, transcribing, dispensing,dan administration. Kesalahan peresepan (prescribing error), kesalahan penerjemahan resep (transcribing erorr), kesalahan menyiapkan dan meracik obat (dispensing erorr), dan kesalahan penyerahan obat kepada pasien (administration error). Medication error yang paling sering terjadi adalah pada fase administration / pemberian obat yang dilakukan oleh perawat.Administration error terjadi ketika pemberian obat kepada pasien tidak sesuai dengan prinsip enam benar yaitu benar obat, benar pasien, benar dosis, benar rute pemberian, benar waktu pemberian dan benar pendokumentasian. Secara global, kesalahan pemberian obat (medication errors) sampai saat ini masih menjadi isu keselamatan pasien dan kualitas pelayanan di beberapa rumah sakit (Depkes RI, 2015; AHRQ, 2015). Perawat sebagai bagian terbesar dari tenaga kesehatan di rumah sakit, mempunyai peranan dalam kejadian medication error. Perawat berkontribusi karena perawat banyak berperan dalam proses pemberian obat. Pemberian obat/ Medication Administration adalah salah satu intervensi keperawatan yang paling banyak dilakukan, dengan sekitar 5- 20% waktu perawat dialokasikan untuk kegiatan ini (Härkänen et al.,, 2019). Pemberian obat juga mencakup tugas-tugas lain, seperti menyiapkan dan memeriksa obat obatan, memantau efek obat-obatan, mengedukasi pasien tentang pengobatan, dan memperdalam pengetahuan perawat tentang obat – obatan sendiri (DrachZahavy et al., 2014 dalam Yulianti et al., 2019)Berdasarkan isu tersebut, penulis tertarik untuk melakukan literature review terkait faktor perawat dalam pelaksanakan keselamatan pasien terhadap kejadian medication administration error di Rumah Sakit.


Author(s):  
Peter J Gates ◽  
Rae-Anne Hardie ◽  
Magdalena Z Raban ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
Johanna I Westbrook

Abstract Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess: 1) changes in medication error rates and associated patient harm following electronic medication system (EMS) implementation; and 2) evidence of system-related medication errors facilitated by the use of an EMS. Materials and Methods We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2005 and March 2019, comparing medication errors rates with or without assessments of related harm (actual or potential) before and after EMS implementation. EMS was defined as a computer-based system enabling the prescribing, supply, and/or administration of medicines. Study quality was assessed. Results There was substantial heterogeneity in outcomes of the 18 included studies. Only 2 were strong quality. Meta-analysis of 5 studies reporting change in actual harm post-EMS showed no reduced risk (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.18–8.38, P = .8) and meta-analysis of 3 studies reporting change in administration errors found a significant reduction in error rates (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.72–0.83, P = .004). Of 10 studies of prescribing error rates, 9 reported a reduction but variable denominators precluded meta-analysis. Twelve studies provided specific examples of system-related medication errors; 5 quantified their occurrence. Discussion and Conclusion Despite the wide-scale adoption of EMS in hospitals around the world, the quality of evidence about their effectiveness in medication error and associated harm reduction is variable. Some confidence can be placed in the ability of systems to reduce prescribing error rates. However, much is still unknown about mechanisms which may be most effective in improving medication safety and design features which facilitate new error risks.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Lin ◽  
B Glover ◽  
J Colley ◽  
B Thibault ◽  
C.M Steinberg ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The EnSite Precision™ Cardiac Mapping System is a catheter navigation and mapping system capable of displaying the three-dimensional (3D) position of conventional and sensor enabled electrophysiology catheters, as well as displaying cardiac electrical activity as waveform traces and dynamic 3-D maps of cardiac chambers. Objective The EnSite Precision™ Observational Study was designed to quantify and characterize the use of the EnSite Precision™ Cardiac Mapping System for mapping and ablation of cardiac arrhythmias in a real-world environment and to evaluate procedural and subsequent clinical outcomes. Methods 1065 patients were enrolled at 38 centers in the U.S. and Canada between 2017–2018. Eligible subjects were adults undergoing a cardiac electrophysiology mapping and radiofrequency ablation procedures using the EnSite Precision™ System. Results Of 989 patients who completed the protocol, a geometry was created in 936 (94.7%). Most initial maps were created using Automap (n=545, 67.0%) or a combination of Automap and manually mapping (n=151, 18.6%). Median time to create an initial map was 9.0 min (IQR 5.0–15.0), with a median number of used mapping points per minute of 92.7 (IQR 30.0–192.0). During ablation, AutoMark was used in 817 (82.6%) of procedures. The most frequent metrics for lesion color were Impedance Drop or Impedance Drop Percent (45.5% combined), time (23.9%) and average force (14.2%). At Canadian sites where LSI was an option, it was used as the color metric in 87 (45.8%) of cases (10.6% overall). The EnSite System was stable throughout 79.7% (n=788 of 989) of procedures. Factors affecting stability were respiratory change (n=88 of 989, 8.9%), patient movement (n=73, 7.4%), CS Positional Reference dislodgement (n=32, 3.2%), and cardioversion (n=19, 1.9%). Conscious sedation was used in 189 (19.1%) of patients. Acute success was reached based on the pre-defined endpoints for the procedure in 97.4% (n=963) of cases. Conclusion In a real-world study analysis, the EnSite Precision™ mapping system was associated with a high prevalence of acute procedural success, low mapping times, and high system stability. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


2017 ◽  
Vol 02 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sreelatha PR ◽  
Raghavan Suresh ◽  
Riyas K ◽  
Venugopal K

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 1599-1610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell S. Buckley ◽  
Lisa M. Harinstein ◽  
Kimberly B. Clark ◽  
Pamela L. Smithburger ◽  
Doug J. Eckhardt ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document