Definition Of Medical Error Research Articles

Nurses' perspectives and experiences on medical errors: A qualitative study.

Medical errors are among the most important factors that threaten patient safety. Therefore, nurses' perspectives and experiences about medical errors are important for this manner. The aim of this study was to determine in depth the perspectives and experiences of nurses related to how they define medical error, as well as its causes, management and reporting. This descriptive, exploratory study involved a qualitative design. A total of 15 clinical nurses from eleven provinces were reached by snowball sampling method. In the study, nurses' perspectives on medical errors were obtained through semistructured in-depth online interviews conducted based on phenomenological methods. Descriptive analysis was used in the analysis of the data obtained from the interviews. The research was conducted following the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative checklist. The resulting 26 codes were categorized under seven themes: "Definition of medical error", "Experience of medical errors", "Frequency of medical errors", "Causes of medical errors", "Reporting of medical errors", "Medical error approach" and "Prevention of medical errors". The results show that it is still necessary to increase the awareness of nurses about medical errors and the importance of error reporting. In addition, it reveals the need for leadership to eliminate the negative approach to medical errors and shows that nurse managers should be empowered accordingly. It is the first step of quality and safe care to reveal nurses' perspectives on medical errors, their thoughts about medical errors and their experiences about errors in their institutions. In this study, nurses' knowledge, opinions and experiences regarding medical errors were revealed in this qualitative study. Therefore, this study offers important clues to nursing services, hospital managers and policy makers for clinical and institutional arrangements.

Factors associated with continuing education needs in medication administration among school nurses.

To investigate the continuing education requirements and factors influencing school nurses' needs in relation to medication administration on school campuses. A total of 391 school nurses working in K-12 schools in Taiwan were invited to participate in an online questionnaire survey. This cross-sectional study employed a probability proportionate to size technique along with a random sampling method. Data were collected from February to April 2023. School nurses reported a significant demand for continuing education and perceived moderate levels of stress and government support related to medication administration. Among the various dimensions, the highest demand was observed for 'definition of campus medication errors' and 'regulations for campus medical orders.' Moreover, the 'identifying drug interactions' and 'adverse drug effects and referrals' dimensions were identified as the most stressful aspects. Notably, perceived stress emerged as the sole predictive factor for continuing education demand, accounting for 16.1% of the variance. The study found that there was a significant demand for and moderate stress related to continuing education among school nurses. Therefore, it is crucial for the government and school nursing organizations to develop targeted programs focusing on medication administration. These initiatives should be designed to enhance nurses' capabilities and reduce their stress, thereby ensuring safe medication administration on campuses. Continuing education enables school nurses to acquire up-to-date knowledge and improve the workflow in their practice. This study highlights a strong need for education in medication administration with a focus on 'campus medication error definitions' and 'campus medical order regulations.' The government and relevant school nursing organizations should prioritize the development and implementation of continuing education programs to decrease the school nurses' stress related to medication administration. No patient or public contribution. This study adhered to the relevant cross-sectional EQUATOR STROBE guidelines.

Drug administration errors in Latin America: A systematic review.

PurposeThis study systematically reviewed studies to determine the frequency and nature of medication administration errors in Latin American hospitals.SummaryWe systematically searched the medical literature of seven electronic databases to identify studies on medication administration errors in Latin American hospitals using the direct observation method. Studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese between 1946 and March 2021 were included. A total of 10 studies conducted at 22 hospitals were included in the review. Nursing professionals were the most frequently observed during medication administration and were observers in four of the ten included studies. Total number of error opportunities was used as a parameter to calculate error rates. The administration error rate had a median of 32% (interquartile range 16%–35.8%) with high variability in the described frequencies (9%–64%). Excluding time errors, the median error rate was 9.7% (interquartile range 7.4%–29.5%). Four different definitions of medication errors were used in these studies. The most frequently observed errors were time, dose, and omission. Only four studies described the therapeutic classes or groups involved in the errors, with systemic anti-infectives being the most reported. None of the studies assessed the severity or outcome of the errors. The assessment of the overall risk bias revealed that one study had low risk, three had moderate risk, and three had high risk. In the assessment of the exploratory, observational, and before-after studies, two were classified as having fair quality and one as having poor quality.ConclusionThe administration error rate in Latin America was high, even when time errors were excluded. The variation observed in the frequencies can be explained by the different contexts in which the study was conducted. Future research using direct observation techniques is necessary to more accurately estimate the nature and severity of medication administration errors.

Drug Dose Calculator Application to Prevent Medication Errors

As a part of the essentials in achieving patient safety, medication errors are one of the most financially detrimental problems in the treatment process faced by health institutions. This article firstly debriefs the definition of medication error and its general classification based on the treatment process. Wrong dose calculation has become one of the most frequent medication errors, especially among anesthesiology-care providers. This article then concisely defines the side effects of commonly-used anesthesia drugs in critical and perioperative care. This article examines medication errors prevalence among anesthesiologists and investigates the line between several risk factors and wrong dosage calculation. Finally, this article concludes with the elucidation of current trends of drug dosage calculators and several studies that aim to validate and prove the efficacy of those applications.

Improving patient safety through identifying barriers to reporting medication administration errors among nurses: an integrative review

BackgroundThe aim of the third WHO challenge released in 2017 was to attain a global commitment to lessen the severity and to prevent medication-related harm by 50% within the next five years. To achieve this goal, comprehensive identification of barriers to reporting medication errors is imperative.ObjectiveThis review systematically identified and examined the barriers hindering nurses from reporting medication administration errors in the hospital setting.DesignAn integrative review.Review methodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) including Google scholar were searched to identify published studies on barriers to medication administration error reporting from January 2016 to December 2020. Two reviewers (AA, and KDK) independently assessed the quality of all the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018.ResultsOf the 10, 929 articles retrieved, 14 studies were included in this study. The main themes and subthemes identified as barriers to reporting medication administration errors after the integration of results from qualitative and quantitative studies were: organisational barriers (inadequate reporting systems, management behaviour, and unclear definition of medication error), and professional and individual barriers (fear of management/colleagues/lawsuit, individual reasons, and inadequate knowledge of errors).ConclusionProviding an enabling environment void of punitive measures and blame culture is imperious for nurses to report medication administration errors. Policymakers, managers, and nurses should agree on a uniform definition of what constitutes medication error to enhance nurses’ ability to report medication administration errors.

Using a rule-based system to define error in the emergency department.

IntroductionThe evaluation of peer‐reviewed cases for error is key to quality assurance (QA) in emergency medicine, but defining error to ensure reviewer agreement and reproducibility remains elusive. The objective of this study was to create a consensus‐based set of rules to systematically identify medical errors.MethodsThis is a prospective, observational study of all cases presented for peer review at an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center emergency department (ED) quality assurance (QA) committee between October 13, 2015, and September 14, 2016. Our hospital uses an electronic system enabling staff to self‐identify QA issues for subsequent review. In addition, physician or patient complaints, 72‐hour returns with admission, death within 24 hours, floor transfers to ICU < 24 hours, and morbidity and mortality conference cases are automatic triggers for review. Trained reviewers not involved in the patient's care use a structured 8‐point Likert scale to assess for error and preventable or non‐preventable adverse events. Cases where reviewers perceived a need for additional treatment, or that caused patient harm, are referred to a 20‐member committee of emergency department leadership, attendings, residents, and nurses for consensus review. For this study, “rules” were proposed by the reviewers identifying the error and validated by consensus during each meeting. The committee then decided if a rule had been broken (error) or not broken (judgment call). If an error could not be phrased in terms of a rule broken, then it would not be considered an error. The rules were then evaluated by 2 reviewers and organized by theme into categories to determine common errors in emergency medicine.ResultsWe identified 108 episodes of rules broken in 103 cases within a database of 920 QA reviewed cases. In cases where a rule was broken and therefore an error was scored, the following 5 major themes emerged: (1) not acquiring necessary information (eg, not completing a relevant physical exam), N = 33 (31%); (2) not acting on data that were acquired (eg, abnormal vital signs or labs), N = 25 (23%); (3) knowledge gaps by clinicians (eg, not knowing to reduce a hernia), N = 16 (15%); (4) communication gaps (eg, discharge instructions), N = 17 (16%); and (5) systems issues (eg, improper patient registration), N = 17 (16%).ConclusionThe development of consensus‐based rules may result in a more standardized and practical definition of error in emergency medicine to be used as a QA tool and a basis for research. The most common type of rule broken was not acquiring necessary information. A rule‐based definition of medical error in emergency medicine may identify key areas for risk reduction strategies, help standardize medical QA, and improve patient care and physician education.

Prevalence of Medication Errors Among Paediatric Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The risk of medication errors is high in paediatric inpatient settings. However, estimates of the prevalence of medication errors have not accounted for heterogeneity across studies in error identification methods and definitions, nor contextual differences across wards and the use of electronic or paper medication charts. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide separate estimates of the prevalence of medication errors among paediatric inpatients, depending on hospital ward and the use of electronic or paper medication charts, that address differences in error identification methods and definitions. We systematically searched five databases to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2018 that assessed medication error rates by medication chart audit, direct observation or a combination of methods. We identified 71 studies, 19 involved paediatric wards using electronic charts. Most studies assessed prescribing errors with few studies assessing administration errors. Estimates varied by ward type. Studies of paediatric wards using electronic charts generally reported a reduced error prevalence compared to those using paper, although there were some inconsistencies. Error detection methods impacted the rate of administration errors in studies of multiple wards, however, no other difference was found. Definition of medication error did not have a consistent impact on reported error rates. Medication errors are a frequent occurrence in paediatric inpatient settings, particularly in intensive care wards and emergency departments. Hospitals using electronic charts tended to have a lower rate of medication errors compared to those using paper charts. Future research employing controlled designs is needed to determine the true impact of electronic charts and other interventions on medication errors and associated harm among hospitalized children.

Defining electronic-prescribing and infusion-related medication errors in paediatric intensive care \u2013 a Delphi study

BackgroundThe use of health information technology (HIT) to improve patient safety is widely advocated by governmental and safety agencies. Electronic-prescribing and smart-pump technology are examples of HIT medication error reduction strategies. The introduction of new errors on HIT implementation is, however, also recognised. To determine the impact of HIT interventions, clear medication error definitions are required. This study aims to achieve consensus on defining as medication errors a range of either technology-generated, or previously unaddressed infusion-related scenarios, common in the paediatric intensive care setting.MethodsThis study was conducted in a 23-bed paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of an Irish tertiary paediatric hospital. A modified Delphi technique was employed: previously undefined medication-incidents were identified by retrospective review of voluntary incident reports and clinical pharmacist interventions; a multidisciplinary expert panel scored each incident using a 9-point Likert scale over a number of iterative rounds; levels of agreement were assessed to produce a list of medication errors. Differences in scoring between healthcare professionals were assessed.ResultsSeventeen potential errors or ‘scenarios’ requiring consensus were identified, 13 of which related to technology recently implemented into the PICU. These were presented to a panel of 37 participants, comprising of doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Consensus was reached to define as errors all reported smart-pump scenarios (n = 6) and those pertaining to the pre-electronic process of prescribing weight-based paediatric infusions (n = 4). Of 7 electronic-prescribing scenarios, 4 were defined as errors, 2 were deemed not to be and consensus could not be achieved for the last. Some differences in scoring between healthcare professionals were found, but were only significant (p < 0.05) for two and three scenarios in consensus rounds 1 and 2 respectively.ConclusionThe list of medication errors produced using the Delphi technique highlights the diversity of previously undefined medication errors in PICU. The increased complexity of electronic-prescribing processes is evident from the difficulty in achieving consensus on those scenarios. Reducing ambiguity in defining medication errors should assist future research on the impact of HIT medication safety initiatives in critical care. The increasing use of HIT and associated new errors will necessitate further similar studies.

Communication of medical errors to patients: questions and tools

For several years and in many different ways, medical errors have been studied. As expected, the majority of efforts have been directed to prevent clinical errors during the different phases of health care. Nevertheless, less attention has been given to what happens when a negative effect has already occurred. The present work describes the doubts and difficulties that doctors deal with when facing an error and to describe the communicational tools that the literature offers to cope with them. The definition of medical error was the starting point that was used to later analyze the evidence about what, why and how to inform medical errors from an ethical and technical point of view. In the light of new legal exigencies, communicational and health protocols are revised, distinguishing those that are used for conveying bad news and medical errors. The importance of the ethical and communicational formation of the professionals is emphasized, identifying certain hindering aspects of the medical culture. This culture promotes an idea of the doctor as a professional who knows everything, does not make mistakes and acts in isolation. These do not reflect personal attributes in the professional and in the health team, required for a good professional practice.

Learning without Borders: A Review of the Implementation of Medical Error Reporting in Médecins Sans Frontières

ObjectiveTo analyse the results from the first 3 years of implementation of a medical error reporting system in Médecins Sans Frontières-Operational Centre Amsterdam (MSF) programs.MethodologyA medical error reporting policy was developed with input from frontline workers and introduced to the organisation in June 2010. The definition of medical error used was “the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim.” All confirmed error reports were entered into a database without the use of personal identifiers.Results179 errors were reported from 38 projects in 18 countries over the period of June 2010 to May 2013. The rate of reporting was 31, 42, and 106 incidents/year for reporting year 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The majority of errors were categorized as dispensing errors (62 cases or 34.6%), errors or delays in diagnosis (24 cases or 13.4%) and inappropriate treatment (19 cases or 10.6%). The impact of the error was categorized as no harm (58, 32.4%), harm (70, 39.1%), death (42, 23.5%) and unknown in 9 (5.0%) reports. Disclosure to the patient took place in 34 cases (19.0%), did not take place in 46 (25.7%), was not applicable for 5 (2.8%) cases and not reported for 94 (52.5%). Remedial actions introduced at headquarters level included guideline revisions and changes to medical supply procedures. At field level improvements included increased training and supervision, adjustments in staffing levels, and adaptations to the organization of the pharmacy.ConclusionIt was feasible to implement a voluntary reporting system for medical errors despite the complex contexts in which MSF intervenes. The reporting policy led to system changes that improved patient safety and accountability to patients. Challenges remain in achieving widespread acceptance of the policy as evidenced by the low reporting and disclosure rates.

FACTORS INFLUENCING REPORTED RATES OF PAEDIATRIC MEDICATION ERRORS

Background and AimMedication errors represent the largest proportion of all types of medical errors.1 They occur at all stages of patient management.2 Limited evidence and popular belief suggests that they...

Prevalence and Nature of Medication Administration Errors in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Direct Observational Evidence

To systematically review empirical evidence on the prevalence and nature of medication administration errors (MAEs) in health care settings. Ten electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health Management Information Consortium) were searched (1985-May 2012). English-language publications reporting MAE data using the direct observation method were included, providing an error rate could be determined. Reference lists of all included articles were screened for additional studies. In all, 91 unique studies were included. The median error rate (interquartile range) was 19.6% (8.6-28.3%) of total opportunities for error including wrong-time errors and 8.0% (5.1-10.9%) without timing errors, when each dose could be considered only correct or incorrect. The median rate of error when more than 1 error could be counted per dose was 25.6% (20.8-41.7%) and 20.7% (9.7-30.3%), excluding wrong-time errors. A higher median MAE rate was observed for the intravenous route (53.3% excluding timing errors (IQR 26.6-57.9%)) compared to when all administration routes were studied (20.1%; 9.0-24.6%), where each dose could accumulate more than one error. Studies consistently reported wrong time, omission, and wrong dosage among the 3 most common MAE subtypes. Common medication groups associated with MAEs were those affecting nutrition and blood, gastrointestinal system, cardiovascular system, central nervous system, and antiinfectives. Medication administration error rates varied greatly as a product of differing medication error definitions, data collection methods, and settings of included studies. Although MAEs remained a common occurrence in health care settings throughout the time covered by this review, potential targets for intervention to minimize MAEs were identified. Future research should attend to the wide methodological inconsistencies between studies to gain a greater measure of comparability to help guide any forthcoming interventions.

How should medication errors be defined? Development and test of a definition

Definitions of medication errors vary widely in the literature, and prevalence from 2-75% in part because of this lack of consensus. Thus, clarification of the concept is urgently needed. The objective was to develop a clear-cut definition of medication errors and specify relevant error types in the medication process. Based on existing taxonomy and through a modified Delphi-process consensus of definition and error types were reached among Danish experts appointed by 13 healthcare organisations and the project group. The experts prioritised five definitions of medication errors and score the relevance of 76 error types. Based on explicit criteria, the project group settled non-consensus cases. The panel consisted of 12 physicians, seven pharmacists, and six nurses. Consensus was reached for the definition "An error in the stages of the medication process - ordering, dispensing, administering and monitoring the effect - causing harm or implying a risk of harming the patient". Moreover, consensus for 60 of 76 error types was achieved. Applied to a historic dataset the definition reduced the number of medication errors from 34% to 7%. Experts deemed a definition using harm or risk of harm as cut-off point as the most appropriate in Danish hospital settings. In addition, they agreed on a list of 60 error types covering the medication process. Interestingly, a substantial lower occurrence of medication errors was found when applied to historic data. The definition is in accordance with international taxonomy, thus is assumed to be applicable to modern healthcare settings abroad.

How are medication errors defined? A systematic literature review of definitions and characteristics

Multiplicity in terminology has been suggested as a possible explanation for the variation in the prevalence of medication errors. So far, few empirical studies have challenged this assertion. The objective of this review was, therefore, to describe the extent and characteristics of medication error definitions in hospitals and to consider the consequences for measuring the prevalence of medication errors. and data extraction Studies were searched for in PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and CINAHL employing primary search terms such as 'medication errors' and 'adverse drug events'. Peer-reviewed articles containing these terms as primary end-points were included. Study country, year, aim, design, data-collection methods, sample-size, interventions and were extracted. Result of data synthesis Forty-five of 203 relevant studies provided a generic definition of medication errors including 26 different forms of wordings. The studies conducted in nine countries represented a variety of clinical settings and the approach was mainly descriptive. Of utmost importance is the documented prevalence of medication errors, which ranged from 2 to 75% with no associations found between definitions and prevalence. Inconsistency in defining medication errors has been confirmed. It appears that definitions and methods of detection rather than being reproducible and reliable methods are subject to the individual researcher's preferences. Thus, application of a clear-cut definition, standardized terminology and reliable methods has the potential to greatly improve the quality and consistency of medication error reporting. Efforts to achieve a common accepted definition that defines the scope and content are therefore needed.

Incidence and Nature of Medication Errors in Neonatal Intensive Care with Strategies to Improve Safety

Neonates are highly vulnerable to medication errors because of their extensive exposure to medications in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the general lack of evidence on pharmacotherapeutic interventions in neonates and the lack of neonate-specific formulations. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify relevant original studies published in the English language. Eleven studies were identified on the frequency of medication errors in the NICU. The highest rate was 5.5 medication errors per 100 prescriptions; however, medication error rates varied widely between studies, partly due to differences in the definition of an error and the rigor of the method used to identify medication errors. Furthermore, studies were difficult to compare because medication error rates were calculated differently. Most studies did not assess the potential clinical impact of the errors. The majority of studies identified dose errors as the most common type of error. Computerised physician order entry and interventions by clinical pharmacists (e.g. the participation of pharmacists in ward rounds and review of patients' prescriptions prior to dispensing) were the most common interventions suggested to improve medication safety in the NICU. However, only very limited data were available on evaluation of the effects of such interventions in NICUs. More research is needed to determine the frequency and types of medication errors in NICUs and to develop evidence-based interventions to improve medication safety in the NICU setting. Some of these research efforts need to be directed to the establishment of clear definitions of medication errors and agreement on the methods that should be used to measure medication error rates and their potential clinical impact.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Labs Studying Patient Safety Consortium and Error Reduction

Definition of Anatomic Pathology Testing Error Patient safety researchers and practitioners are not agreed on the definition of medical error.22,23 The IOM definition is that a medical error is the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim.3 Some have argued that this definition of error is too broad and classifies events as errors when in fact they may have occurred naturally in the course of normal medical care. For example, patient safety researchers disagree on the classification of a patient death immediately attributable to The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Labs Studying Patient Safety Consortium and Error Reduction Stephen S. Raab, MD,1 Dana M. Grzybicki, MD, PhD,1 Janine E. Janosky, PhD,2 Richard J. Zarbo, MD, DMD,3 Kim R. Geisinger, MD,4 Frederick A. Meier, MD,3 Chris Jensen, MD,5 Eva M. Wojcik, MD,6 Marian Haber, MD,7 and Stanley J. Geyer, MD8*

Systematic Review of Medication Errors in Pediatric Patients

To systematically locate and review studies that have investigated the incidence of medication errors (MEs) in pediatric inpatients and identify common errors. A systematic search of studies related to MEs in children was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE (1951-April 2006), EMBASE (1966-April 2006), Pharm-line (1978-April 2006), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2006), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982-April 2006), and British Nursing Index (1994-April 2006). Studies of the incidence and nature of MEs in pediatrics were included. The title, abstract, or full article was reviewed for relevance; any study not related to MEs in children was excluded. Three methods were used to detect MEs in the studies reviewed: spontaneous reporting (n = 10), medication order or chart review (n = 14), or observation (n = 8). There was great variation in the definitions of ME used and the error rates reported. The most common type of ME was dosing error, often involving 10 times the actual dose required. Antibiotics and sedatives were the most common classes of drugs associated with MEs; these are probably among the most common drugs prescribed. Interpretation of the literature was hindered by variation in definitions employed by different researchers, varying research methods and setting, and a lack of theory-based research. Overall, it would appear that our initial concern about MEs in pediatrics has been validated; however, we do not know the actual size of the problem. Further work to determine the incidence and causes of MEs in pediatrics is urgently needed, as well as evaluation of the best interventions to reduce them.

Incidence and nature of dosing errors in paediatric medications: a systematic review.

In paediatric medicine, drug doses are usually calculated individually based on the patient's age, weight and clinical condition. Therefore, there are increased opportunities for, and a relatively high risk of, dosing errors in this setting. Consequently, a systematic literature review using several databases was conducted to investigate the incidence and nature of dosing errors in children; 16 studies were found to be relevant. Eleven of the 16 studies found that dosing errors are the most common type of medication error, three of the remaining studies found it to be the second most common type. This review of published research on medication errors therefore suggests that dosing errors are probably the most common type of error in the paediatric population. In addition, there was a great variation in the error rates reported; this is likely to be due to the differences in the medication error definitions and methodologies employed. For example, the dosing error rate determined using spontaneous reporting ranges from 0.03 per 100 admissions in the UK to 2 per 100 admissions in the US. Extrapolating this, if the under-reporting rate is about 1 in 100, then the true incidence would be around 50,000 paediatric dosing errors per year in England. The information available shows that dosing errors are not uncommon and that 10-fold overdoses caused by calculation errors have led to serious consequences. There is an urgent need to develop methods to reduce medication errors in children and dosing errors should be the first priority.

A model of medical error based on a model of disease: interactions between adverse events, failures, and their errors.

This article discusses Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center's approach to assessing and preventing errors in care and promoting patient safety. The word error is applied to all kinds of events, including adverse occurrences, negligence, and malpractice. Thus confusion exists among those analyzing the causes of adverse events. A patient safety committee standardized the definition of medical error and developed a taxonomy for error as a prelude to efforts at error reduction. It identified three levels or layers that can represent a train of events culminating in an undesired outcome: error, treatment failure, and adverse event. This discussion is offered in the interest of clarifying some of the issues.