Medication Administration Rounds Research Articles

Efectividad de una intervención hospitalaria para disminuir interrupciones durante la preparación y administración de medicación

Objective: to assess the effectiveness of the warning vest upon the reduction of interruptions during the medication preparation and administration rounds in the hospital setting, and to collect the experiences of Nursing professionals regarding this. Method: a quasi-experimental pre-and-post intervention study without control arm. The intervention consisted in giving information to the healthcare staff, patients and relatives, about the importance of not interrupting the medication process, as well as placing informative posters in the units, and implementing one-single-use vests to make this activity visible. Data were collected through direct observation pre-and-post intervention in four hospitalization units during medication rounds. Additionally, an opinion survey was conducted among participants. Results: in the pre-intervention period, 29 professionals were observed during 29.2 hours. There were 516 interruptions, one every 3.23 (SD:1.18) minutes. In the post-intervention period, 26 professionals were observed during 19 hours, and there were 210 interruptions, one every 5.26 (SD: 3.44) minutes as mean (p= 0.001). Of these professionals, 58.8% believed that this was not an effective measure for reducing interruptions, 61.8% thought that patients / relatives did not understand the measure well, and 11.5% suggested looking for measures which were more ecological. Conclusions: vests reduced the number of interruptions and increased the time between them, even though this continued being significant. Added on to the low satisfaction by professionals and its environmental impact, this entailed the rejection of warning vests as an effective measure for the reduction of interruptions during the medication process.

Evaluation of Nonpharmacologic Interventions and Sleep Outcomes in Hospitalized Medical and Surgical Patients

Inadequate sleep negatively affects patients' physical health, mental well-being, and recovery. Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended as first-choice treatment. However, studies evaluating the interventions are often of poor quality and show equivocal results. To assess whether the implementation of nonpharmacologic interventions is associated with improved inpatient night sleep. In a nonrandomized controlled trial, patients were recruited on the acute medical unit and medical and surgical wards of a Dutch academic hospital. All adults who spent exactly 1 full night in the hospital were recruited between September 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020 (control group), received usual care. Patients recruited between September 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021, served as the intervention group. The intervention group received earplugs, an eye mask, and aromatherapy. Nurses received sleep-hygiene training, and in the acute medical unit, the morning medication and vital sign measurement rounds were postponed from the night shift to the day shift. All interventions were developed in collaboration with patients, nurses, and physicians. Sleep was measured using actigraphy and the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System sleep disturbance item bank. Other outcomes included patient-reported sleep disturbing factors and the use of sleep-enhancing tools. A total of 374 patients were included (222 control, 152 intervention; median age, 65 [IQR, 52-74] years). Of these, 331 were included in the analysis (195 [59%] men). Most patients (138 [77%] control, 127 [84%] intervention) were in the acute medical unit. The total sleep time was 40 minutes longer in the intervention group (control: median, 6 hours and 5 minutes [IQR, 4 hours and 55 minutes to 7 hours and 4 minutes]; intervention: 6 hours and 45 minutes [IQR, 5 hours and 47 minutes to 7 hours and 39 minutes]; P < .001). This was mainly due to a 30-minute delay in final wake time (median clock-time: control, 6:30 am [IQR, 6:00 am to 7:22 am]; intervention, 7:00 am [IQR, 6:30-7:30 am]; P < .001). Sleep quality did not differ significantly between groups. For both groups, the main sleep-disturbing factors were noises, pain, toilet visits, and being awakened by hospital staff. Sleep masks (23 of 147 [16%]) and earplugs (17 of 147 [12%]) were used most. Nightly vital sign checks decreased significantly (control: 54%; intervention: 11%; P < .001). The findings of this study suggest that sleep of hospitalized patients may be significantly improved with nonpharmacologic interventions. Postponement of morning vital sign checks and medication administration rounds from the night to the day shift may be a useful way to achieve this. Netherlands Trial Registry Identifier: NL7995.

Effectiveness of a \u2018do not interrupt\u2019 vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe use of a ‘do not interrupt’ vest during medication administration rounds is recommended but there have been no controlled randomized studies to evaluate its impact on reducing administration errors. We aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing such a vest on reducing such errors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the types and potential clinical impact of errors, the association between errors and several risk factors (such as interruptions), and nurses’ experiences.MethodsThis was a multicenter, cluster, controlled, randomized study (March–July 2017) in 29 adult units (4 hospitals). Data were collected by direct observation by trained observers. All nurses from selected units were informed. A ‘Do not interrupt’ vest was implemented in all units of the experimental group. A poster was placed at the entrance of these units to inform patients and relatives. The main outcome was the administration error rate (number of Opportunities for Error (OE), calculated as one or more errors divided by the Total Opportunities for Error (TOE) and multiplied by 100).ResultsWe enrolled 178 nurses and 1346 patients during 383 medication rounds in 14 units in the experimental group and 15 units in the control group. During the intervention period, the administration error rates were 7.09% (188 OE with at least one error/2653 TOE) for the experimental group and 6.23% (210 OE with at least one error/3373 TOE) for the control group (p = 0.192). Identified risk factors (patient age, nurses’ experience, nurses’ workload, unit exposition, and interruption) were not associated with the error rate. The main error type observed for both groups was wrong dosage-form. Most errors had no clinical impact for the patient and the interruption rates were 15.04% for the experimental group and 20.75% for the control group.ConclusionsThe intervention vest had no impact on medication administration error or interruption rates. Further studies need to be performed taking into consideration the limitations of our study and other risk factors associated with other interventions, such as nurse’s training and/or a barcode system.Trial registrationThe PERMIS study protocol (V2–1, 11/04/2017) was approved by institutional review boards and ethics committees (CPP Ile de France number 2016-A00211–50, CNIL 21/03/2017, CCTIRS 11/04/2016). It is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03062852, date of first registration: 23/02/2017).

Barcode medication administration technology use in hospital practice: a mixed-methods observational study of policy deviations

IntroductionBarcode medication administration (BCMA) can, if poorly implemented, cause disrupted workflow, increased workload and cause medication errors. Further exploration is needed of the causes of BCMA policy deviations.ObjectiveTo gain an...

Medication administration in Australian residential aged care: A time-and-motion study.

Medication administration is a complex and time-consuming task in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Understanding the time associated with each administration step may help identify opportunities to optimize medication management in RACFs. This study aimed to investigate the time taken to administer medications to residents, including those with complex care needs such as cognitive impairment and swallowing difficulties. A time-and-motion study was conducted in three South Australian RACFs. A representative sample of 57 scheduled medication administration rounds in 14 units were observed by a single investigator. The rounds were sampled to include different times of day, memory support units for residents living with dementia and standard units, and medication administration by registered and enrolled nurses. Medications were administered from pre-prepared medication strip packaging. The validated Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) software was used to record observations. Thirty nurses were observed. The average time spent on scheduled medication administration rounds was 5.2 h/unit of average 22 residents/day. The breakfast medication round had the longest duration (1.92 h/unit). Resident preparation, medication preparation and provision, documentation, transit, communication, and cleaning took an average of 5 minutes per resident per round. Medication preparation and provision comprised 60% of overall medication round time and took significantly longer in memory support than in standard units (66 vs 49 seconds per resident per round for preparation, 79 vs 58 for provision; P < .001 for both). Almost half (42%) of tablets/capsules were crushed in memory support units. The time taken for medication administration was not significantly different among registered and enrolled nurses. Nurses took an average of 5 minutes to administer medications per resident per medication round. Medication administration in memory support units took an additional minute per resident per round, with almost half of tablets and capsules needing to be crushed.

Interruptions experienced by nurses during pediatric medication administration in China: An observational study.

The objectives of this study were to describe (a) the frequency of interruptions experienced by a pediatric nurse per hour, (b) the sources of interruptions experienced by a pediatric nurse, and (c) the interruption outcomes during pediatric medication administration. This design of this study was a cross-sectional observational study. A convenience sample of pediatric nurses was used in this study. The interruption observation sheet was used to collect data about the frequency, sources, and outcomes of interruptions. There was a total of 43 nurses were observed in more than 180 medication administration rounds. An interruption rate of 94.51% occurred during pediatric medication administration. The frequency of interruptions was three or more times (51.04%). The most common source of interruption was attributed to the working environment (32.37%). The second most frequent reason for interruption came from personnel, such as caregivers (24.48%), followed by physicians (10.79%), and other nursing staff (9.54%). The third most common source of interruption was communication issues, including patient interviews, patient reports, and case discussion (8.71%). Six errors (2.49%) were reported out of 241 interruptions as a result of interruptions. In specific, causes of errors during pediatric medication administration were due to wrong medication dose. This study provides important information on interruptions experienced by pediatric nurses during medication administration in Chinese hospital settings and found that interruptions frequently occur in pediatric units.

The effect of a residential care pharmacist on medication administration practices in aged care: A controlled trial.

With the ageing of the population also comes increasing comorbidities and the use of multiple medications and administration methods, along with greater susceptibility to adverse drug reactions. Dosage form modification to facilitate drug administration in older adults can be potentially problematic as altering the original licensed formulation can affect medication safety and efficacy. The reporting of adverse drug reactions and medication incidents is a key strategy in avoiding preventable adverse drug events for aged care residents. This study evaluated the effect of an on-site clinical pharmacist on reducing inappropriate dosage form modification and staff time spent on medication administration, and optimizing the documentation of drug allergies, adverse drug reactions and medication incidents. A pilot-controlled trial was performed in a purposive sample of two residential aged care homes. Both homes belonged to the same organization; the study site had 104 beds and the control site had 100 beds. All permanent residents were eligible for inclusion in the study if written consent was provided. A residential care pharmacist position was implemented at the study site for six months, with a focus on performing medication reviews and quality improvement activities. Observational audits of medication rounds were performed, and documentation relating to allergies, adverse drug reactions, and medication incidents was obtained from both sites before and after the pharmacist trial period. At the study site, there was a significant reduction over the trial in the proportion of inappropriate dosage form modification (from 24% to 0% of all dosage form modifications; P<0.01). Mean time spent on medication rounds per resident reduced from 4.8minutes per resident (SD 1.1) to 3.2minutes per resident (SD 1.7) per round (P<0.05). The incidence of previous allergy and adverse drug reaction documentation significantly improved from 77% of residents pre-study to 100% of residents post-study (P<0.01). Mean monthly medication incident reports significantly improved from 13.3 (SD 7.4) pre-study to 25.7 (SD 10.8) post-study (P<0.05). There was no change in these outcomes at the control site. Including a pharmacist in a residential aged care home can improve medication administration practices by reducing inappropriate dosage form modification and staff time spent on medication administration rounds, and increasing the documentation of resident allergies, adverse drug reactions and medication incidents. These findings warrant further exploration in a large randomized controlled trial.

Exploring an extended role for pharmacy assistants on inpatient wards in UK hospitals: using mixed methods to develop the role of medicines assistants

ObjectivesThis project explored the deployment of pharmacy assistants to inpatient wards in a new role as ‘medicines assistants’ (MA).MethodsWard-based MAs were introduced to six wards across two UK hospitals to...

The impact of a hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration system on medication administration safety: an observational study

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to explore the impact of the implementation of an electronic prescribing and medication administration system (ePA) on the safety of medication administration in an inpatient hospital setting. Objectives were to compare the prevalence and types of: 1) medication administration errors, and 2) documentation discrepancies, between a paper and an ePA system. Additionally, we wanted to describe any observed changes to medication administration practices.MethodsThe study was based on an elderly medicine ward in an English hospital. From December 2014 to June 2015, nurses’ medication administration rounds were observed every 5 days before and after ePA implementation using an interrupted time-series approach. Medication administration error and documentation discrepancy rates pre- versus post-ePA were analysed descriptively and chi-squared tests used to test for any difference; segmented regression analysis was used to determine changes in longitudinal trend.ResultsObservations were made at 15 pre- and 15 post-ePA implementation time-points. Pre-ePA on paper, there were 18 medication administration errors in 428 opportunities for error (4.2%; 95% confidence interval 2.3–6.1%), and with ePA there were 18 in 528 (3.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9–5.0%; p = 0.64). Regarding documentation, pre-ePA on paper there were 5 discrepancies in 460 observed documentations (1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.1–2.0%); with ePA there were 18 in 557 (3.2%; 95% confidence interval 1.8–4.7%; p = 0.04). The most common electronic documentation discrepancy was documentation that a dose had been administered when it had not. Segmented regression analysis was unable to detect any significant longitudinal changes. Changes to working practices post-ePA were observed, such as nurses demonstrating less-consistent self-checking when preparing and administering medications.ConclusionsFindings suggest no change in medication error rate, although ePA encourages certain types of errors and mitigates others. There was a statistically significant increase in documentation discrepancies which is likely to be due to adoption of new working practices with ePA.

A comparison of medication administration errors from original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids in care homes: A prospective observational study

BackgroundNo published study has been specifically designed to compare medication administration errors between original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids in care homes, using direct observation. ObjectivesCompare the effect of original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids on medication administration accuracy. DesignProspective observational. SettingTen Greater London care homes. ParticipantsNurses and carers administering medications. MethodsBetween October 2014 and June 2015, a pharmacist researcher directly observed solid, orally administered medications in tablet or capsule form at ten purposively sampled care homes (five only used original medication packaging and five used both multi-compartment compliance aids and original medication packaging). The medication administration error rate was calculated as the number of observed doses administered (or omitted) in error according to medication administration records, compared to the opportunities for error (total number of observed doses plus omitted doses). ResultsOver 108.4h, 41 different staff (35 nurses, 6 carers) were observed to administer medications to 823 residents during 90 medication administration rounds. A total of 2452 medication doses were observed (1385 from original medication packaging, 1067 from multi-compartment compliance aids). One hundred and seventy eight medication administration errors were identified from 2493 opportunities for error (7.1% overall medication administration error rate). A greater medication administration error rate was seen for original medication packaging than multi-compartment compliance aids (9.3% and 3.1% respectively, risk ratio (RR)=3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 6.1, p<0.001). Similar differences existed when comparing medication administration error rates between original medication packaging (from original medication packaging-only care homes) and multi-compartment compliance aids (RR=2.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 4.9, p=0.03), and between original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids within care homes that used a combination of both medication administration systems (RR=4.3, 95%CI 2.7 to 6.8, p<0.001). A significant difference in error rate was not observed between use of a single or combination medication administration system (p=0.44). ConclusionThe significant difference in, and high overall, medication administration error rate between original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids supports the use of the latter in care homes, as well as local investigation of tablet and capsule impact on medication administration errors and staff training to prevent errors occurring. As a significant difference in error rate was not observed between use of a single or combination medication administration system, common practice of using both multi-compartment compliance aids (for most medications) and original packaging (for medications with stability issues) is supported.

The Role of Hospital Inpatients in Supporting Medication Safety: A Qualitative Study.

BackgroundInpatient medication errors are a significant concern. An approach not yet widely studied is to facilitate greater involvement of inpatients with their medication. At the same time, electronic prescribing is becoming increasingly prevalent in the hospital setting. In this study we aimed to explore hospital inpatients’ involvement with medication safety-related behaviours, facilitators and barriers to this involvement, and the impact of electronic prescribing.MethodsWe conducted ethnographic observations and interviews in two UK hospital organisations, one with established electronic prescribing and one that changed from paper to electronic prescribing during our study. Researchers and lay volunteers observed nurses’ medication administration rounds, pharmacists’ ward rounds, doctor-led ward rounds and drug history taking. We also conducted interviews with healthcare professionals, patients and carers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Observation notes and transcripts were coded thematically.ResultsPaper or electronic medication records were shown to patients in only 4 (2%) of 247 cases. However, where they were available during patient-healthcare professional interactions, healthcare professionals often viewed them in order to inform patients about their medicines and answer any questions. Interprofessional discussions about medicines seemed more likely to happen in front of the patient where paper or electronic drug charts were available near the bedside. Patients and carers had more access to paper-based drug charts than electronic equivalents. However, interviews and observations suggest there are potentially more significant factors that affect patient involvement with their inpatient medication. These include patient and healthcare professional beliefs concerning patient involvement, the way in which healthcare professionals operate as a team, and the underlying culture.ConclusionPatients appear to have more access to paper-based records than electronic equivalents. However, to develop interventions to increase patient involvement with medication safety behaviours, a wider range of factors needs to be considered.

Effect of automated drug distribution systems on medication error rates in a short-stay geriatric unit.

Rationale, aims and objectivesTo assess the impact of an automated drug distribution system on medication errors (MEs).MethodsBefore-after observational study in a 40-bed short stay geriatric unit within a 1800 bed general hospital in Valenciennes, France. Researchers attended nurse medication administration rounds and compared administered to prescribed drugs, before and after the drug distribution system changed from a ward stock system (WSS) to a unit dose dispensing system (UDDS), integrating a unit dose dispensing robot and automated medication dispensing cabinet (AMDC).ResultsA total of 615 opportunities of errors (OEs) were observed among 148 patients treated during the WSS period, and 783 OEs were observed among 166 patients treated during the UDDS period. ME [medication administration error (MAE)] rates were calculated and compared between the two periods. Secondary measures included type of errors, seriousness of errors and risk reduction for the patients. The implementation of an automated drug dispensing system resulted in a 53% reduction in MAEs. All error types were reduced in the UDDS period compared with the WSS period (P < 0.001). Wrong dose and wrong drug errors were reduced by 79.1% (2.4% versus 0.5%, P = 0.005) and 93.7% (1.9% versus 0.01%, P = 0.009), respectively.ConclusionAn automated UDDS combining a unit dose dispensing robot and AMDCs could reduce discrepancies between ordered and administered drugs, thus improving medication safety among the elderly.

Clinical relevance of and risk factors associated with medication administration time errors

The clinical relevance of and risk factors associated with errors related to medication administration time were studied. In this explorative study, 66 medication administration rounds were studied on two wards (surgery and neurology) of a hospital. Data on medication errors were collected using the blister collection method. The emptied packaging material of medication was collected after each round and compared with each patient's medication orders. Administration time errors were defined as medication administration (actual intake) occurring more than one hour before or after the prescribed time. Generalized estimating equations analysis was performed to study the correlation between medication administration errors and risk factors. Data from 129 patients were included in the study. Among these 129 patients, 2874 opportunities for error were recorded. The majority of opportunities for error occurred during the 7 a.m. round. Within the 2874 opportunities for errors, 10 administration time errors occurred for medications that might interact with food or another medication. Time of administration (noon and 3 p.m.), route of administration (injection or infusion), and frequency of administration (if necessary) had significant protective effects against the occurrence of administration time errors. The rectal route of administration was associated with a significant increase in the frequency of administration time errors compared with the oral route. A clinically relevant administration time error occurred in 2 cases (0.07%). Analysis of medication administration rounds found time errors to be the most common medication error.

Interruptions during hospital nurses’ medication administration rounds

Medication administration errors are common, costly and the cause of adverse events in clinical practice. Interruptions during medication administration rounds are thought to be a prominent causative factor of these medication errors. In this observational study, data were collected on the number and duration of several different sources of verbal and non-verbal interruptions using unobtrusive structured observations on 32 medication administration rounds. Interruptions occurred very often (6.9 times per nurse each hour), differed in frequency among the medication administration rounds and were from a variety of sources. The most frequent interruptions were caused by nursing colleagues (43%) and non-verbal interruptions from the ward environment (25%), such as noises from pagers, conversations in the vicinity of the nurse, the work of cleaners, or stock management by pharmacy staff. The longest durations of interruptions were from nursing colleagues&amp;rsquo; verbal interrup- interruptions. When comparing the medication rounds, more and longer interruptions were observed during the morning rounds than those at noon. A comparison between surgical and non-surgical units showed that interruptions occurred more often and lasted longer in non-surgical units than those in surgical units. But the observed differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, interruptions during medication administration rounds are frequent and originated from different human and environmental sources. Interventions should target not only interruptions by colleagues, but should also consider ways to reduce self-initiated interruptions and those arising from the immediate ward environment.

Effect of bar-code-assisted medication administration on medication administration errors

Administration errors cause one third of preventable drug events.1 Barcode-assisted medication administration (BCMA) is a tool that can help prevent this type of error.2 We conducted an observational before-and-after study in a surgical ward (28 beds) in a 555-bed community hospital in the Netherlands to determine the effect of BCMA on the frequency and severity of administration errors. Before BCMA implementation, physicians prescribed medications in an electronic medical patient record, and nurses transcribed the orders to a paper medication administration record. In November 2009, the hospital implemented a computerized physician-order-entry (CPOE) system with an integrated BCMA system and an electronic medication administration record (eMAR). The ward stores certain high-use medications as floor stock. All other medication is supplied by the pharmacy. In addition to BCMA, a new logistic procedure was established to deliver medications thrice daily instead of once daily. One week before and six months after BCMA implementation, nurses were observed by data collectors during three daily medication administration rounds (8 a.m., 12 p.m., and 4 p.m.) in a five-day period using disguised observation.3 Every observed drug administration was included except patient self-administration of drugs and insulins and presurgical medication not prescribed through CPOE. An administration error was defined as any deviation from the order on the eMAR. Errors were categorized as an omission (prescribed drug not administered), a logistic omission (drug not administered due to absence by logistic cause), an unauthorized drug administration, a wrong dosage form, too-early or too-late administration (±90 minutes), a wrong dose, an extra dose, or administration to the wrong patient. Since the objective of this study fell within the boundaries of quality-of-care improvement, medical ethical approval was not considered necessary according to Dutch legislation.

Characteristics of Work Interruptions During Medication Administration

To document characteristics of nurses' work interruptions (WIs) during medication administration. A descriptive observational study design was used along with a sample of 102 medication administration rounds. Data were collected on a single medical unit using a unit dose distribution system during fall 2007. Data collection on WIs relied on direct structured observation. The following WI characteristics were recorded: source, secondary task, location, management strategies, and duration. 374 WIs were observed over 59 hours 2 minutes of medication administration time (6.3 WI/hr). During the preparation phase, nurse colleagues (n= 36; 29.3%) followed by system failures such as missing medication or equipment (n= 28; 22.8%) were the most frequent source of WIs. Nurses were interrupted during the preparation phase mostly to solve system failures (n= 33; 26.8%) or for care coordination (n= 30; 24.4%). During the administration phase, the most frequent sources of WIs were self-initiation (n= 41; 16.9%) and patients (n= 39; 16.0%). The most frequent secondary task undertaken during the administration phase was direct patient care (n= 105; 43.9%). WIs lasted 1 min 32 s on average, and were mostly handled immediately (n= 357; 98.3%). The process of medication administration is not protected against WIs, which poses significant risks. Interventions to reduce WIs during the medication administration process should target nurses and system failures to maximize medication administration safety.