Medication Administration through Enteral Feeding Tubes in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients: Evaluation of the Potential Medication Errors

Abstract

Background: Oral medication administration through enteral feeding tubes is a challenging issue in critically ill patients, which can lead to medication error. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit may not have the ability to swallow oral medications for various reasons such as lack of consciousness, or the need for mechanical ventilation. Improving the quality of drug administration through enteral feeding tubes is essential. The present study aimed at evaluation of the prevalence of medication errors that occur during the administration of oral medications through enteral feeding tubes in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.
 Methods: This study was a cross-sectional observational study conducted in Golestan Educational Hospital, Ahvaz, Iran. Oral medication administration was evaluated in 50 patients within three months; demographic information, medical records and medicine prescribing information about each patient was examined. The errors were measured according to the Handbook of Drugs Administration via enteral feeding tubes.
 Results: Errors occurred in percentage of total prescriptions as follows: Drug-drug interaction 26%, wrong preparation 22.3%, incorrect dosage form 12.1%, wrong time error 11.6%, drug-food interaction 6.7%, improper dose error 5.5%, wrong route 3.8%, extra dose 0.9%, omission 0.2%, deteriorated drug 0.2%, and unordered drug 0.0%. In our study, it was found that most of the drugs were administered in solid dosage forms, and almost 33% of them could be substituted for injection or oral liquid formulations.
 Conclusion: Our study indicated the high frequency of drug preparation errors in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Close teamwork between pharmacists or pharmacotherapists, physicians, and nurses can result in the appropriate administration of medications by an enteral feeding tube.
 J Pharm Care 2019; 7(3): 52-56