OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and evaluation of a web-based medication error reporting system. DESIGN: Evaluation study. SETTING: Long-term care. PARTICIPANTS: 25 nursing homes in the US state of North Carolina. INTERVENTION: Detailed information about all medication errors occurring in a facility during a 1 year period was entered into a web-based reporting system. An evaluation survey was conducted to assess usability and the potential for the system to prevent errors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and specific characteristics of medication errors reported. A survey evaluating ease of use of the system and whether the participants thought it would help improve medication safety. RESULTS: 23 (92%) sites entered 631 error reports for 2731 discrete error instances when weighted by the number of times the errors were repeated. 51 (8%) errors were classified as having a serious patient impact requiring monitoring/intervention or worse. The most common errors were dose omission (203, 32%), overdose (91, 14%), underdose (43, 7%), wrong patient (38, 6%), wrong product (38, 6%), and wrong strength (38, 6%). Errors most commonly occurred during medication administration (296, 47%) and were attributed to basic human error (402, 48%). Seven drugs were implicated in a third (175, 28%) of all errors: lorazepam, oxycodone, warfarin, furosemide, hydrocodone, insulin and fentanyl. 20 sites (86% of respondents) completed the evaluation survey and participants found the system easy to use and thought it would increase accuracy of reporting and improve patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based medication error reporting system was easy to use, with strong indications that it would be a valuable tool for preventing future errors.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and evaluation of a web-based medication error reporting system. DESIGN: Evaluation study. SETTING: Long-term care. PARTICIPANTS: 25 nursing homes in the US state of North Carolina. INTERVENTION: Detailed information about all medication errors occurring in a facility during a 1 year period was entered into a web-based reporting system. An evaluation survey was conducted to assess usability and the potential for the system to prevent errors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and specific characteristics of medication errors reported. A survey evaluating ease of use of the system and whether the participants thought it would help improve medication safety. RESULTS: 23 (92%) sites entered 631 error reports for 2731 discrete error instances when weighted by the number of times the errors were repeated. 51 (8%) errors were classified as having a serious patient impact requiring monitoring/intervention or worse. The most common errors were dose omission (203, 32%), overdose (91, 14%), underdose (43, 7%), wrong patient (38, 6%), wrong product (38, 6%), and wrong strength (38, 6%). Errors most commonly occurred during medication administration (296, 47%) and were attributed to basic human error (402, 48%). Seven drugs were implicated in a third (175, 28%) of all errors: lorazepam, oxycodone, warfarin, furosemide, hydrocodone, insulin and fentanyl. 20 sites (86% of respondents) completed the evaluation survey and participants found the system easy to use and thought it would increase accuracy of reporting and improve patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based medication error reporting system was easy to use, with strong indications that it would be a valuable tool for preventing future errors.
Authors: Elizabeth A Flynn; Kenneth N Barker; Ginette A Pepper; David W Bates; Robert L Mikeal Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: David W Bates; R Scott Evans; Harvey Murff; Peter D Stetson; Lisa Pizziferri; George Hripcsak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Sandra B Greene; Charlotte E Williams; Susan J Blalock; Kathleen D Crook; Roger Akers; Timothy S Carey Journal: Am J Geriatr Pharmacother Date: 2006-03
Authors: Gregory L Alexander; Riley Harrell; Sue Shumate; Mason Rothert; Amy Vogelsmeier; Lori Popejoy; Marilyn Rantz Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Anna V Medem; Hanna M Seidling; Hans-Georg Eichler; Jens Kaltschmidt; Michael Metzner; Carina M Hubert; David Czock; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Gregory L Alexander; Andrew Georgiou; Kevin Doughty; Andrew Hornblow; Anne Livingstone; Michelle Dougherty; Stephen Jacobs; Malcolm J Fisk Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Betsie G I van Gaal; Lisette Schoonhoven; Marlies E J L Hulscher; Joke A J Mintjes; George F Borm; Raymond T C M Koopmans; Theo van Achterberg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: N D Barber; D P Alldred; D K Raynor; R Dickinson; S Garfield; B Jesson; R Lim; I Savage; C Standage; P Buckle; J Carpenter; B Franklin; M Woloshynowych; A G Zermansky Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2009-10