OBJECTIVE: Medication errors are frequent in a hospital setting and often caused by inappropriate drug handling. Systematic strategies for their prevention however are still lacking. We developed and applied a classification model to categorise medication handling errors and defined the urgency of correction on the basis of these findings. SETTING: Nurses on medical wards (including intensive and intermediate care units) of a 1,680-bed teaching hospital. METHOD: In a prospective observational study we evaluated the prevalence of 20 predefined medication handling errors on the ward. In a concurrent questionnaire survey, we assessed the knowledge of the nurses on medication handling. The severity of errors observed in individual areas was scored considering prevalence, potential risk of an error, and the involved drug. These scores and the prevalence of corresponding knowledge deficits were used to define the urgency of preventive strategies according to a four-field decision matrix. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence and potential risk of medication handling errors, corresponding knowledge deficits in nurses committing the errors, and priority of quality improvement. RESULTS: In 1,376 observed processes 833 medication handling errors were detected. Errors concerning preparation (mean 0.88 errors per observed process [95% CI: 0.81-0.96], N = 645) were more frequent than administration errors (0.36 [0.32-0.41], N = 701, P < 0.001). Parenteral drugs (1.10 [1.00-1.19], N = 492) were more often involved in errors than enteral drugs (0.32 [0.28-0.36], N = 794, P < 0.001). Of the 833 observed medication errors 30.9% concerned processes of high risk, 19.0% of moderate risk, and 50.1% of low risk. Of these errors 11.4% were caused by critical dose drugs, 81.6% by uncomplicated drugs, and 6.9% by nutritional supplements or diluents without active ingredient. According to the decision matrix that also considered knowledge deficits two error types concerning enteral drugs (flaws in light protection and prescribing information) were given maximum priority for quality improvement. For parenteral drugs five errors (incompatibilities, flaws in hygiene, duration of administration, check for visible abnormalities, and again prescribing information) appeared most important. CONCLUSION: We successfully applied a newly developed classification model to prioritise medication handling errors for prevention strategies.
OBJECTIVE: Medication errors are frequent in a hospital setting and often caused by inappropriate drug handling. Systematic strategies for their prevention however are still lacking. We developed and applied a classification model to categorise medication handling errors and defined the urgency of correction on the basis of these findings. SETTING: Nurses on medical wards (including intensive and intermediate care units) of a 1,680-bed teaching hospital. METHOD: In a prospective observational study we evaluated the prevalence of 20 predefined medication handling errors on the ward. In a concurrent questionnaire survey, we assessed the knowledge of the nurses on medication handling. The severity of errors observed in individual areas was scored considering prevalence, potential risk of an error, and the involved drug. These scores and the prevalence of corresponding knowledge deficits were used to define the urgency of preventive strategies according to a four-field decision matrix. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence and potential risk of medication handling errors, corresponding knowledge deficits in nurses committing the errors, and priority of quality improvement. RESULTS: In 1,376 observed processes 833 medication handling errors were detected. Errors concerning preparation (mean 0.88 errors per observed process [95% CI: 0.81-0.96], N = 645) were more frequent than administration errors (0.36 [0.32-0.41], N = 701, P < 0.001). Parenteral drugs (1.10 [1.00-1.19], N = 492) were more often involved in errors than enteral drugs (0.32 [0.28-0.36], N = 794, P < 0.001). Of the 833 observed medication errors 30.9% concerned processes of high risk, 19.0% of moderate risk, and 50.1% of low risk. Of these errors 11.4% were caused by critical dose drugs, 81.6% by uncomplicated drugs, and 6.9% by nutritional supplements or diluents without active ingredient. According to the decision matrix that also considered knowledge deficits two error types concerning enteral drugs (flaws in light protection and prescribing information) were given maximum priority for quality improvement. For parenteral drugs five errors (incompatibilities, flaws in hygiene, duration of administration, check for visible abnormalities, and again prescribing information) appeared most important. CONCLUSION: We successfully applied a newly developed classification model to prioritise medication handling errors for prevention strategies.
Authors: Young Mi Kim; Seung Hee Yoo; Rae Young Kang; Min Jung Kim; Yoon Young Bae; Yeon Kyung Lee; Su Jin Jeon; Kung Ju Chon; Sang Mi Shin; Sang Geon Kim; Kyoung Ho Park; In Ja Son Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Anita Krähenbühl-Melcher; Raymond Schlienger; Markus Lampert; Manuel Haschke; Jürgen Drewe; Stephan Krähenbühl Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: L L Leape; D W Bates; D J Cullen; J Cooper; H J Demonaco; T Gallivan; R Hallisey; J Ives; N Laird; G Laffel Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Florentine Carow; Karin Rieger; Ingeborg Walter-Sack; Markus R Meyer; Frank T Peters; Hans H Maurer; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Thilo Bertsche; Carolin Veith; Alexander Stahl; Torsten Hoppe-Tichy; F Joachim Meyer; Hugo A Katus; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Pharm World Sci Date: 2010-08-07
Authors: Alexander F J Send; Adel Al-Ayyash; Sabrina Schecher; Gottfried Rudofsky; Ulrike Klein; Matthias Schaier; Markus G Pruszydlo; Diana Witticke; Kristina Lohmann; Jens Kaltschmidt; Walter E Haefeli; Hanna M Seidling Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Hanna M Seidling; Anette Lampert; Kristina Lohmann; Julia T Schiele; Alexander J F Send; Diana Witticke; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Anna Volodina; Thilo Bertsche; Karel Kostev; Volker Winkler; Walter Emil Haefeli; Heiko Becher Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nathan Mensah; Felix Sukums; Timothy Awine; Andreas Meid; John Williams; Patricia Akweongo; Jens Kaltschmidt; Walter E Haefeli; Antje Blank Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 2.640
Authors: Joseph I Boullata; Janice L Clarke; Archie Stone; Alexis Skoufalos; David B Nash Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.459