AIMS: The aim of this work is to understand the process of drug administration and identify points in the workflow that resulted in interventions by clinical information systems in order to improve patient safety. METHODS: To identify a generic way to structure the drug administration process we performed peer-group discussions and supplemented these discussions with a literature search for studies reporting errors in drug administration and strategies for their prevention. RESULTS: We concluded that the drug administration process might consist of up to 11 sub-steps, which can be grouped into the four sub-processes of preparation, personalization, application and follow-up. Errors in drug handling and administration are diverse and frequent and in many cases not caused by the patient him/herself, but by family members or nurses. Accordingly, different prevention strategies have been set in place with relatively few approaches involving e-health technology. CONCLUSIONS: A generic structuring of the administration process and particular error-prone sub-steps may facilitate the allocation of prevention strategies and help to identify research gaps.
AIMS: The aim of this work is to understand the process of drug administration and identify points in the workflow that resulted in interventions by clinical information systems in order to improve patient safety. METHODS: To identify a generic way to structure the drug administration process we performed peer-group discussions and supplemented these discussions with a literature search for studies reporting errors in drug administration and strategies for their prevention. RESULTS: We concluded that the drug administration process might consist of up to 11 sub-steps, which can be grouped into the four sub-processes of preparation, personalization, application and follow-up. Errors in drug handling and administration are diverse and frequent and in many cases not caused by the patient him/herself, but by family members or nurses. Accordingly, different prevention strategies have been set in place with relatively few approaches involving e-health technology. CONCLUSIONS: A generic structuring of the administration process and particular error-prone sub-steps may facilitate the allocation of prevention strategies and help to identify research gaps.
Authors: Elizabeth A H Wilson; Denise C Park; Laura M Curtis; Kenzie A Cameron; Marla L Clayman; Gregory Makoul; Keith Vom Eigen; Michael S Wolf Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-08-04
Authors: Geert N Rootmensen; Anton R J van Keimpema; Henk M Jansen; Rob J de Haan Journal: J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.849
Authors: Tamara L Hayes; Kofi Cobbinah; Terry Dishongh; Jeffrey A Kaye; Janna Kimel; Michael Labhard; Todd Leen; Jay Lundell; Umut Ozertem; Misha Pavel; Matthai Philipose; Kevin Rhodes; Sengul Vurgun Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: B N Verheggen-Laming; H Phiferons; E F Mulder; N T van der Meij; R P van Harten; B A Dijkmans Journal: Scand J Rheumatol Date: 1988 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Viktoria S Wurmbach; Steffen J Schmidt; Anette Lampert; Simone Bernard; Christine K Faller; Petra A Thürmann; Walter E Haefeli; Hanna M Seidling Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 2.711