Literature DB >> 20412002

Identifying medication misadventures: poor agreement among medical record, physician, nurse, and patient reports.

Peter J Kaboli1, Justin M Glasgow, C Komal Jaipaul, William A Barry, Jill R Strayer, Barbara Mutnick, Gary E Rosenthal.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare four different methods of detecting medication misadventures in order to determine the optimal system for reporting clinically observed medication misadventures.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Forty-eight-bed general internal medicine inpatient ward at a large academic teaching hospital with a decentralized pharmacy system. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-six patients (54% male, mean age 54 yrs) with 133 consecutive admissions to the ward (mean length of stay 7.8 days) over an 8-week period from December 2001-February 2002. INTERVENTION: Medication misadventures were detected by four methods: house staff (resident physicians) report during their morning conference, nursing report during shift change, patient report at the discharge interview, and standardized medical record review. All methods of reporting medication misadventures were compared with the hospital's existing electronic medication misadventure reporting system.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 63 patients (47% of 133 admissions) experienced at least one medication misadventure. Thirty-seven adverse drug events (ADEs) and 69 medication errors were observed over 1035 patient bed-days. Little overlap was noted among the four intervention methods, with nearly 80% of all 106 events detected by only a single method (medical record review 51% [54 events], patient interview 11% [12], house-staff report 9% [10], nurse report 8% [9]). Of the 37 ADEs, 6 (16%) were due to medication errors and 10 (27%) were preventable. Of five life-threatening ADEs, all were preventable, and all were reported in the medical record and the electronic reporting system; however, only two were reported by a nurse, two by a resident physician, and one by a patient.
CONCLUSION: Little overlap was noted among the individual medication misadventure reporting methods, suggesting the need to use multiple complementary methods to identify medication misadventures in hospitalized patients. These findings have important implications for development of surveillance systems, design of prevention initiatives, and future medication safety research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20412002     DOI: 10.1592/phco.30.5.529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacotherapy        ISSN: 0277-0008            Impact factor:   4.705


  8 in total

Review 1.  Identifying high-risk medication: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Eva A Saedder; Birgitte Brock; Lars Peter Nielsen; Dorthe K Bonnerup; Marianne Lisby
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Outcome Assessment of Critical Care Pharmacist Services.

Authors:  Seth R Bauer; Sandra L Kane-Gill
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2016-07

3.  Can staff and patient perspectives on hospital safety predict harm-free care? An analysis of staff and patient survey data and routinely collected outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca Lawton; Jane Kathryn O'Hara; Laura Sheard; Caroline Reynolds; Kim Cocks; Gerry Armitage; John Wright
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 7.035

4.  Comparison of Eight Technologies to Determine Genotype at the UGT1A1 (TA)n Repeat Polymorphism: Potential Clinical Consequences of Genotyping Errors?

Authors:  Tristan M Sissung; Roberto H Barbier; Douglas K Price; Teri M Plona; Kristen M Pike; Stephanie D Mellott; Ryan N Baugher; Gordon R Whiteley; Daniel R Soppet; David Venzon; Arlene Berman; Arun Rajan; Giuseppe Giaccone; Paul Meltzer; William D Figg
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Targeted versus tailored multimedia patient engagement to enhance depression recognition and treatment in primary care: randomized controlled trial protocol for the AMEP2 study.

Authors:  Daniel J Tancredi; Christina K Slee; Anthony Jerant; Peter Franks; Jasmine Nettiksimmons; Camille Cipri; Dustin Gottfeld; Julia Huerta; Mitchell D Feldman; Maja Jackson-Triche; Steven Kelly-Reif; Andrew Hudnut; Sarah Olson; Janie Shelton; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability.

Authors:  Oyvind Bjertnaes; Kjersti Eeg Skudal; Hilde Hestad Iversen; Anne Karin Lindahl
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  Pilot study on identification of incidents in healthcare transitions and concordance between medical records and patient interview data.

Authors:  Marije A van Melle; Daphne C A Erkelens; Henk F van Stel; Niek J de Wit; Dorien L M Zwart
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study.

Authors:  Jane K O'Hara; Caroline Reynolds; Sally Moore; Gerry Armitage; Laura Sheard; Claire Marsh; Ian Watt; John Wright; Rebecca Lawton
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 7.035

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.