H Shonna Yin1,2, Ruth M Parker3, Lee M Sanders4, Alan Mendelsohn5,2, Benard P Dreyer5, Stacy Cooper Bailey6, Deesha A Patel7, Jessica J Jimenez5, Kwang-Youn A Kim8, Kara Jacobson9, Michelle C J Smith4, Laurie Hedlund7, Nicole Meyers5, Terri McFadden10, Michael S Wolf7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue, New York, New York; yinh02@med.nyu.edu. 2. Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 3. Departments of Medicine and. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 5. Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue, New York, New York. 6. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics and. 8. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 9. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 10. Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poorly designed labels and dosing tools contribute to dosing errors. We examined the degree to which errors could be reduced with pictographic diagrams, milliliter-only units, and provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed volumes. METHODS: This study involved a randomized controlled experiment in 3 pediatric clinics. English- and Spanish-speaking parents (n = 491) of children ≤8 years old were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups and given labels and dosing tools that varied in label instruction format (text and pictogram, or text only) and units (milliliter-only ["mL"] or milliliter/teaspoon ["mL/tsp"]). Each parent measured 9 doses of liquid medication (3 amounts [2, 7.5, and 10 mL] and 3 tools [1 cup, 2 syringes (5- and 10-mL capacities)]) in random order. The primary outcome was dosing error (>20% deviation), and large error (>2× dose). RESULTS: We found that 83.5% of parents made ≥1 dosing error (overdosing was present in 12.1% of errors) and 29.3% of parents made ≥1 large error (>2× dose). The greatest impact on errors resulted from the provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes. For the 2-mL dose, the fewest errors were seen with the 5-mL syringe (5- vs 10-mL syringe: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 7.5 [5.7-10.0]). For the 7.5-mL dose, the fewest errors were with the 10-mL syringe, which did not necessitate measurement of multiple instrument-fulls (5- vs 10-mL syringe: aOR = 4.0 [3.0-5.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 2.1 [1.5-2.9]). Milliliter/teaspoon was associated with more errors than milliliter-only (aOR = 1.3 [1.05-1.6]). Parents who received text only (versus text and pictogram) instructions or milliliter/teaspoon (versus milliliter-only) labels and tools made more large errors (aOR = 1.9 [1.1-3.3], aOR = 2.5 [1.4-4.6], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of dosing tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes is an especially promising strategy for reducing pediatric dosing errors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poorly designed labels and dosing tools contribute to dosing errors. We examined the degree to which errors could be reduced with pictographic diagrams, milliliter-only units, and provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed volumes. METHODS: This study involved a randomized controlled experiment in 3 pediatric clinics. English- and Spanish-speaking parents (n = 491) of children ≤8 years old were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups and given labels and dosing tools that varied in label instruction format (text and pictogram, or text only) and units (milliliter-only ["mL"] or milliliter/teaspoon ["mL/tsp"]). Each parent measured 9 doses of liquid medication (3 amounts [2, 7.5, and 10 mL] and 3 tools [1 cup, 2 syringes (5- and 10-mL capacities)]) in random order. The primary outcome was dosing error (>20% deviation), and large error (>2× dose). RESULTS: We found that 83.5% of parents made ≥1 dosing error (overdosing was present in 12.1% of errors) and 29.3% of parents made ≥1 large error (>2× dose). The greatest impact on errors resulted from the provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes. For the 2-mL dose, the fewest errors were seen with the 5-mL syringe (5- vs 10-mL syringe: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 7.5 [5.7-10.0]). For the 7.5-mL dose, the fewest errors were with the 10-mL syringe, which did not necessitate measurement of multiple instrument-fulls (5- vs 10-mL syringe: aOR = 4.0 [3.0-5.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 2.1 [1.5-2.9]). Milliliter/teaspoon was associated with more errors than milliliter-only (aOR = 1.3 [1.05-1.6]). Parents who received text only (versus text and pictogram) instructions or milliliter/teaspoon (versus milliliter-only) labels and tools made more large errors (aOR = 1.9 [1.1-3.3], aOR = 2.5 [1.4-4.6], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of dosing tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes is an especially promising strategy for reducing pediatric dosing errors.
Authors: H Shonna Yin; Benard P Dreyer; Hannah A Moreira; Linda van Schaick; Luis Rodriguez; Susanne Boettger; Alan L Mendelsohn Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: H Shonna Yin; Alan L Mendelsohn; Michael S Wolf; Ruth M Parker; Arthur Fierman; Linda van Schaick; Isabel S Bazan; Matthew D Kline; Benard P Dreyer Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2010-02
Authors: H Shonna Yin; Benard P Dreyer; Linda van Schaick; George L Foltin; Cheryl Dinglas; Alan L Mendelsohn Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2008-09
Authors: Tiffany A Williams; Michael S Wolf; Ruth M Parker; Lee M Sanders; Stacy Bailey; Alan L Mendelsohn; Benard P Dreyer; Jessica J Velazquez; H Shonna Yin Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Nicole Meyers; Alexander F Glick; Alan L Mendelsohn; Ruth M Parker; Lee M Sanders; Michael S Wolf; Stacy Bailey; Benard P Dreyer; Jessica J Velazquez; H Shonna Yin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Maribeth C Lovegrove; Mathew R P Sapiano; Ian M Paul; H Shonna Yin; Tricia Lee Wilkins; Daniel S Budnitz Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Alexander F Glick; Jonathan S Farkas; Rebecca E Rosenberg; Alan L Mendelsohn; Suzy Tomopoulos; Arthur H Fierman; Benard P Dreyer; Michael Migotsky; Jennifer Melgar; H Shonna Yin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: James A Feinstein; Hannah Friedman; Lucas E Orth; Chris Feudtner; Allison Kempe; Sadaf Samay; Allison B Blackmer Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02