Reported Medication Incidents Research Articles

Assessing Direct Oral Anti-Coagulant And Therapeutic Low Molecular Weight Heparin Prescriptions At A University Teaching Hospital

Abstract Background A 2017-2018 survey identified anti-thrombotics as the most commonly implicated agents in reported medication incidents across Irish acute hospitals [State Claims Agency, 2020, Medication Incidents Report (2017-2018)]. Of the top 10 anti-thrombotics reported, 2 were Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWHs) and 3 were Direct Oral Anti-Coagulants (DOACs). 3 years after the survey results were published, we audited our hospital's compliance with the Health Service Executive's guidelines for prescribing DOACs and LMWHs. Methods Over 3 consecutive weeks, data was collected by doctors and clinical pharmacists across 6 wards and the intensive and coronary care units. In-patients on a DOAC or therapeutic LMWH were chosen for kardex and laboratory result review. Results 83 patients were included. The average age was 79 years. 81%(n=67) were on a DOAC. 91% were being treated for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), 3% for pulmonary embolism (PE), 3% for deep vein thrombosis and 3% had no indication documented. 33%(n=22) had indications for dose reduction but only 77%(n=17) of them were prescribed the appropriate reduced dose. 3%(n=2) had no dose reduction indications but were inappropriately prescribed a reduced dose. 3%(n=2) were on dialysis, 1%(n=1) had their creatinine clearance persistently below 15ml/min and 1%(n=1) inappropriately received once daily dosing of apixaban for 3 days. 19%(n=16) of all participants were on therapeutic LMWH. Treatment indications included acute coronary syndrome in 63%, suspected PE in 19%, newly diagnosed NVAF in 6% and bridging anti-coagulation while a DOAC is temporarily held in 13%. 6%(n=1) were inappropriately prescribed an under-dose. Conclusion Overall, there was an error rate of 16%(n=11) in DOAC prescriptions and 6%(n=1) in LMWH prescriptions. To address this, we propose an educational intervention for prescribers and the introduction of e-prescriptions with built-in alerts for errors. We plan to re-audit once these recommendations are implemented.

A prospective audit on adult thromboprophylaxis and therapeutic anticoagulation prescribing and administration practices in Galway University Hospitals

Abstract Introduction Anticoagulants are high-alert medications that can cause significant patient harm if used inappropriately.[1] These preparations have been identified as a significant medication safety concern in Galway University Hospitals and are one of the most frequently reported medication incidents in Ireland.[2] A key performance indicator agreed by the local Medication Safety Subgroup and Drugs and Therapeutics Committee was to conduct an anticoagulation audit against local guidelines to identify patterns and develop quality improvements. Methods A prospective audit was conducted over six weeks from September to November 2022 by five interprofessional data collectors using a data collection tool and accessing drug records and clinical notes. Development of the tool was guided by national[1] and local guidelines as well as design input from local expert specialist doctors and pharmacists. Adult inpatients on all wards receiving thromboprophylaxis (after 24 hours of admission) or therapeutic anticoagulation were included. Paediatrics and psychiatry were excluded. The protocol and tool were approved by the local Clinical Audit Committee, piloted with three inpatients, and communicated to all data collectors prior to commencement. Generated data were anonymous and securely stored. Data analysis was carried out by two independent researchers to confirm reliability of results. Results A total of 242 inpatients were audited on 26 wards: -Patients prescribed thromboprophylaxis (52%; 126/242). -Patients prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation (26%; 63/242) -Patients not prescribed anticoagulants (22%; 54/242) Most patients (92%; 216/234) did not have a thromboprophylaxis risk assessment form completed/signed. Nineteen patients (35%; n=54) not prescribed thromboprophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation should have been prescribed anticoagulation. High compliance with guidelines (>80%) included: i) anticoagulants prescribed in correct section of drug record, ii) appropriate agents prescribed, iii) correct dose and frequency, iv) few dose delays and omissions, and v) indication mostly documented. Low compliance with guidelines (<35%) included: -Patient height and weight not documented: unable to calculate creatinine clearance to determine accurate dose. -Incorrect administration times for once daily therapeutic dosing (should be in morning to facilitate surgery next day) and twice daily dosing (mostly 8am and 10pm = gap of 14 hours and 10 hours). Conclusion Results have identified varying levels of compliance with local anticoagulation guidelines. To date, there has been continuous targeted education and training on appropriate anticoagulation use for doctors, nurses, and pharmacy staff inclusive of the development and implementation of a new bespoke eLearning module for high-alert medications (which includes the appropriate use of anticoagulants specific to Galway University Hospitals). High leverage strategies, such as electronic prescribing, is a current consideration to standardise practices. Strengths include study robustness, interprofessional collaboration, and transferability to other hospitals. Perhaps reducing the scope in a re-audit which will be conducted in 2024 to identify any improvements in medication safety and patient care with these agents may allow for further in-depth analysis.

Flow of information contributing to medication incidents in home care-An analysis considering incident reporters' perspectives.

To describe the contributing factors and types of reported medication incidents in home care related to the flow of information in different phases of the medication process, as reported by multi-professional healthcare groups. This descriptive, qualitative study used retrospective data. An incident-reporting database was used to collect 14,289 incident reports from 2017 to 2019 in a city in Finland. We used this data to select medication incidents (n = 1027) related to the flow of information in home care and between home care and hospitals. Data were divided into five groups based on the medication phase: (1) prescribing, (2) dispensing, (3) administration, (4) documentation and (5) self-administration. In addition, the types of medication-related incidents were described. The data were examined using abductive content analysis. The EQUATOR SRQR checklist was used in this report. Four main categories were identified from the data: (1) issues related to information management, (2) cooperation issues between different actors, (3) work environment and lack of resources and (4) factors related to healthcare workers. Cooperation issues contributed to medication-related incidents during each phase. Incomplete communication was a contributing factor to medication incidents. This occurred between home care, remote care, hospital, the client and the client's relatives. Specifically, a lack of information-sharing occurred in repatriation situations, where care transitioned between different healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals, organisations, clients and their relatives should focus on the efficient and safe acquisition of medications. Specifically, the use of electronic communication systems, together with oral reports and checklists for discharge situations, and timely cooperation with pharmacists should be developed to manage information flows. These findings demonstrate that healthcare professionals require uniform models and strategies to accurately and safely prescribe, dispense and administer medications in home care settings. No patient or public contributions.

The impact of transition to a digital hospital on medication errors (TIME study)

Digital transformation in healthcare improves the safety of health systems. Within our health service, a new digital hospital has been established and two wards from a neighbouring paper-based hospital transitioned into the new digital hospital. This created an opportunity to evaluate the impact of complete digital transformation on medication safety. Here we discuss the impact of transition from a paper-based to digital hospital on voluntarily reported medication incidents and prescribing errors. This study utilises an interrupted time-series design and takes place across two wards as they transition from a paper to a digital hospital. Two data sources are used to assess impacts on medication incidents and prescribing errors: (1) voluntarily reported medication incidents and 2) a chart audit of medications prescribed on the study wards. The chart audit collects data on procedural, dosing and therapeutic prescribing errors. There are 588 errors extracted from incident reporting software during the study period. The average monthly number of errors reduces from 12.5 pre- to 7.5 post-transition (p < 0.001). In the chart audit, 5072 medication orders are reviewed pre-transition and 3699 reviewed post-transition. The rates of orders with one or more error reduces significantly after transition (52.8% pre- vs. 15.7% post-, p < 0.001). There are significant reductions in procedural (32.1% pre- vs. 1.3% post-, p < 0.001), and dosing errors (32.3% pre- vs. 14% post-, p < 0.001), but not therapeutic errors (0.6% pre- vs. 0.7% post-, p = 0.478). Transition to a digital hospital is associated with reductions in voluntarily reported medication incidents and prescribing errors.

Medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care: a rapid review.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered rapid, fundamental changes, notably increased remote delivery of primary care. While the impact of these changes on medication safety is not yet fully understood, research conducted before the pandemic may provide evidence for possible consequences. To examine the published literature on medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care, with a focus on telemedicine and electronic prescribing. A rapid review was conducted according to the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance. An electronic search was carried out on Embase and Medline (via PubMed) using key search terms 'medication error', 'electronic prescribing', 'telemedicine' and 'primary care'. Identified studies were synthesised narratively; reported medication safety incidents were categorised according to the WHO Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. Fifteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. All 15 studies reported medication incidents associated with electronic prescribing; no studies were identified that reported medication safety incidents associated with telemedicine. The most commonly reported medication safety incidents were 'wrong label/instruction' and 'wrong dose/strength/frequency'. The frequency of medication safety incidents ranged from 0.89 to 81.98 incidents per 100 electronic prescriptions analysed. This review of medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care identified common incident types associated with electronic prescriptions. There was a wide variation in reported frequencies of medication safety incidents associated with electronic prescriptions. Further research is required to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medication safety in primary care, particularly the increased use of telemedicine.

Evaluation of Medication Incidents in a Long-term Care Facility Using Electronic Medication Administration Records and Barcode Technology.

Objective To describe the frequency, type, and severity of reported medication incidents that occurred at a long-term care facility (LTCF) despite electronic medication administration record and barcode-assisted medication administration (eMAR-BCMA) use. The study also contains analysis for the contribution of staff workarounds to reported medication administration errors (MAEs) using an established typology for BCMA workarounds, characterize if the eMAR-BCMA technology contributed to MAEs, and explore characteristics influencing incident severity. Design Retrospective incident report review. Setting A 239-bed LTCF in Alberta, Canada, that implemented eMAR-BCMA in 2013. Participants 270 paper-based, medication incident reports submitted voluntarily between June 2015 and October 2017. Interventions None. Results Most of the 264 resident-specific medication incidents occurred during the administration (71.9%, 190/264) or dispensing (28.4%, 75/264) phases, and 2.3% (6/264) resulted in temporary harm. Medication omission (43.7%, 83/190) and incorrect time (22.6%, 43/190) were the most common type of MAE. Workarounds occurred in 41.1% (78/190) of MAEs, most commonly documenting administration before the medication was administered (44.9%, 35/78). Of the non-workaround MAEs, 52.7% (59/112) were notassociated with the eMAR-BCMA technology, while 26.8% (30/112) involved system design shortcomings, most notably lack of a requirement to scan each medication pouch during administration. MAEs involving workarounds were less likely to reach the resident (74.4 vs 88.8%; relative risk = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97). Conclusion Administration and dispensing errors were the most reported medication incidents. eMAR-BCMA workarounds, and design shortcomings were involved in a large proportion of reported MAEs. Attention to optimal eMAR-BCMA use and design are required to facilitate medication safety in LTCFs.

Medication Safety in Mental Health Hospitals: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Incidents Reported to the National Reporting and Learning System.

Medication safety incidents commonly occur in mental health hospitals. There is a need to improve the understanding of the circumstances that are thought to have played a part in the origin of these incidents to design safer systems to improve patient safety. This study aimed to undertake a mixed-methods analysis of medication safety incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System in England and Wales in 2010 to 2017. Quantitative analyses of anonymized medication safety incidents occurring in mental health hospitals that were reported to the National Reporting and Learning System during an 8-year period were undertaken to characterize their type, severity, and the medication(s) involved. Second, a content analysis of the free-text reports associated with all incidents of at least moderate harm severity was undertaken to identify the underlying contributory factors. Overall, 94,134 medication incident reports were examined, of which 10.4% (n = 9811) were reported to have resulted in harm. The 3 most frequent types of reported medication incidents involved omission of medication (17,302; 18.3%), wrong frequency (11,882; 12.6%), and wrong/unclear dose of medication (10,272; 10.9%). Medicines from the central nervous system (42,609; 71.0%), cardiovascular (4537; 7.6%), and endocrine (3669; 6.1%) medication classes were the most frequently involved with incidents. Failure to follow protocols (n = 93), lack of continuity of care (n = 92), patient behaviors (n = 62), and lack of stock (n = 51) were frequently reported as contributory factors. Medication incidents pose an enduring threat to patient safety in mental health hospitals. This study has identified important targets that can guide the tailored development of remedial interventions.

Magnitude of error: a review of wrong dose medication incidents reported to a UK hospital voluntary incident reporting system

ObjectivesOur aim was to review medication-related incidents reported to a hospital voluntary incident reporting system to identify and quantify the magnitude of wrong dose errors.MethodsThe study was a retrospective review...

Review of medication errors that are new or likely to occur more frequently with electronic medication management systems.

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify and quantify medication errors reportedly related to electronic medication management systems (eMMS) and those considered likely to occur more frequently with eMMS. This included developing a new classification system relevant to eMMS errors. Methods Eight Victorian hospitals with eMMS participated in a retrospective audit of reported medication incidents from their incident reporting databases between May and July 2014. Site-appointed project officers submitted deidentified incidents they deemed new or likely to occur more frequently due to eMMS, together with the Incident Severity Rating (ISR). The authors reviewed and classified incidents. Results There were 5826 medication-related incidents reported. In total, 93 (47 prescribing errors, 46 administration errors) were identified as new or potentially related to eMMS. Only one ISR2 (moderate) and no ISR1 (severe or death) errors were reported, so harm to patients in this 3-month period was minimal. The most commonly reported error types were 'human factors' and 'unfamiliarity or training' (70%) and 'cross-encounter or hybrid system errors' (22%). Conclusions Although the results suggest that the errors reported were of low severity, organisations must remain vigilant to the risk of new errors and avoid the assumption that eMMS is the panacea to all medication error issues. What is known about the topic? eMMS have been shown to reduce some types of medication errors, but it has been reported that some new medication errors have been identified and some are likely to occur more frequently with eMMS. There are few published Australian studies that have reported on medication error types that are likely to occur more frequently with eMMS in more than one organisation and that include administration and prescribing errors. What does this paper add? This paper includes a new simple classification system for eMMS that is useful and outlines the most commonly reported incident types and can inform organisations and vendors on possible eMMS improvements. The paper suggests a new classification system for eMMS medication errors. What are the implications for practitioners? The results of the present study will highlight to organisations the need for ongoing review of system design, refinement of workflow issues, staff education and training and reporting and monitoring of errors.

Medication Errors in Voluntary Reported Incidents at a Jordanian Hospital = الأخطاء الدوائية في الحوادث الطوعية في مستشفى أردني

Medication incident reports may help organizations to prevent medication errors and to improve patient outcomes. Aims: To assess the prevalence, origin, type, and severity of reported medication incidents at Jordan University Hospital, utilizing a voluntary non-punitive reporting system. Materials and Methods: The present study is of a retrospective design. All voluntary non-punitive incident reports that occurred between January 2014 to March 2015 at Jordan University Hospital were retrieved from the quality department of the hospital. Detailed content analysis was conducted to obtain all relevant information. Data were coded anonymously and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There was an increase in reporting of medication errors overtime and almost all of the reporters were nurses. A total of 58 medication error reports including 86 medications were related to errors in medication management process starting from prescribing, dispensing to administration of medications. Two-thirds of those reports originated from the internal medicine department and the neonatal intensive care unit. The most common drug classes associated with those reports were anti-infectives, antivirals, antifungals, cardiovascular medications and chemotherapy agents. The majority of errors occurred during the administration phase where missed doses and wrong time accounted for more than 52% of the reported incidents. Around 98.8% of reported incidents did not cause major harm to patients. Conclusion: Results of this study showed low percent of a broad variety of medication errors in multiple hospital departments. Additional research is required to identify possible improvements to optimize reporting and to enhance the response to each report.

G325(P) To err is human: thematic characterisation of paediatric clinical incidents within a large district general hospital

Aims Our children’s hospital encompasses several acute clinical areas. These include paediatric medical and surgical inpatient wards (including the children’s high dependency ward), the children’s emergency department and the neonatal intensive care unit. Collectively these are busy and challenging environments where the provision of care is increasingly complex. These provide opportunities for errors to occur making unintended consequences to harm more likely. The Francis report published in February 2013 highlighted the need for openness and transparency in regards to patient safety. We reviewed clinical incidents reported within all acute clinical paediatric areas in order to characterise commonly recurring themes. Method Clinical incident forms from all acute paediatric clinical areas from 1 September 2012 until 31 August 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Incidents were assessed for the degree of actual harm caused to patients. They were subsequently categorised according to the National Reporting and Learning System incident types for each clinical area. Medications incidents were further sub-classified by type. Results 872 incident forms involving all acute paediatric clinical areas were submitted over a 24 month period. 67% of all clinical incidents were reported as having insignificant harm to patients and only 2% as catastrophic. The types of incidents reported are shown in Figure 1. Medication errors accounted for a significant percentage of reported incidents within each clinical area (19% children’s emergency department; 30% children’s wards; 26% neonatal intensive care unit). Other commonly reported incidents were infrastructure problems and patient accidents. The types of medication incidents reported are shown in Figure 2. The most commonly reported medication incidents within each clinical area were wrong dose of medicine (26% children’s emergency department), omitted medicines (23% children’s wards) and wrong method of preparation (20% neonatal intensive care unit). Conclusion Incident forms submitted within a children’s hospital should be reviewed so that commonly recurring themes can be identified. Within our hospital medication errors accounted for the majority of reported incidents. Characterisation of these themes have implications for the training of staff which can be tailored to individual paediatric clinical areas.

Technology-related medication errors in a tertiary hospital: A 5-year analysis of reported medication incidents

PurposeHealthcare technology is meant to reduce medication errors. The objective of this study was to assess unintended errors related to technologies in the medication use process. MethodsMedication incidents reported from 2006 to 2010 in a main tertiary care hospital were analysed by a pharmacist and technology-related errors were identified. Technology-related errors were further classified as socio-technical errors and device errors. This analysis was conducted using data from medication incident reports which may represent only a small proportion of medication errors that actually takes place in a hospital. Hence, interpretation of results must be tentative. Results1538 medication incidents were reported. 17.1% of all incidents were technology-related, of which only 1.9% were device errors, whereas most were socio-technical errors (98.1%). Of these, 61.2% were linked to computerised prescription order entry, 23.2% to bar-coded patient identification labels, 7.2% to infusion pumps, 6.8% to computer-aided dispensing label generation and 1.5% to other technologies. The immediate causes for technology-related errors included, poor interface between user and computer (68.1%), improper procedures or rule violations (22.1%), poor interface between user and infusion pump (4.9%), technical defects (1.9%) and others (3.0%). In 11.4% of the technology-related incidents, the error was detected after the drug had been administered. ConclusionsA considerable proportion of all incidents were technology-related. Most errors were due to socio-technical issues. Unintended and unanticipated errors may happen when using technologies. Therefore, when using technologies, system improvement, awareness, training and monitoring are needed to minimise medication errors.

Understanding the attitudes of hospital pharmacists to reporting medication incidents: A qualitative study

BackgroundThe attitudes of doctors, nurses, and midwives to reporting errors in health care have been extensively studied, but there is very limited literature considering pharmacists’ attitudes to medication error reporting schemes, in particular in hospitals. ObjectivesTo explore and understand the attitudes of hospital pharmacists to reporting medication incidents. MethodsFocus groups were conducted with a total of 17 hospital pharmacists from 4 purposively sampled hospitals in the North West of England. The recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and subject to thematic analysis using a framework analysis approach. ResultsPharmacists agreed that the high prevalence of medication errors, especially prescribing errors of omission, has led to an acceptance of not using hospital reporting systems. There were different personal thresholds for reporting medication errors but pharmacists agreed that the severity of any patient harm was the primary reporting driver. Hospital pharmacists had specific anxieties about the effects of reporting on interprofessional working relationships with doctors and nurses, but felt more confident to report if they had previously witnessed positive feedback and system change following an error. Existing reporting forms were considered too cumbersome and time consuming to complete, as pharmacists felt the need to find and record every possible detail. ConclusionsHospital pharmacists understood the importance of reporting medication incidents, but because of the high number of errors they encounter do not report them as often as may be expected. The decision to report was a complex process that depended on the severity of patient harm, anxieties about harming interprofessional relationships, prior experience of the outcomes from reporting, and the perceived effort required to use reporting forms.

Medication safety: using incident data analysis and clinical focus groups to inform educational needs

Medication-related safety incidents are a source of concern to patients, policy makers and clinicians. The role of education in improving safety-critical practices in health care is poorly appreciated. This pilot study aimed to initiate collective discussion among professional groups of clinical staff about a range of medicine-related patient safety issues which were identified from a local incident reporting system. In engaging staff to collectively reflect on reported medication incidents we attempted to uncover a deeper understanding of local contextual issues and potential educational needs. A mixed method study was conducted involving categorical analysis of 1058 medication incident reports (Phase 1) and the use of three mixed focus groups of clinical staff (Phase 2) in three acute hospitals in one locality in NHS Scotland. Focus group transcript analysis produced four main themes (e.g. the medical role) and 12 related sub-themes (e.g. pharmacological education and skill mix for administration of medicines) concerning medication-related practices and possible educational interventions. While it is necessary to review reported incident data and disseminate the educational messages for the improvement of quality, this traditional risk management process is inadequate on its own. Reporting systems can be enhanced by collective examination of reported information about medicines by local clinical teams. We identified a strong message from the focus groups for learning about each other and from each other, and that the method piloted may be an important inter-professional mechanism for improvement.

A nationwide medication incidents reporting system in The Netherlands

Many Dutch hospitals have established internal systems for reporting incidents. However, such internal systems do not allow learning from incidents that occur in other hospitals. Therefore a multicenter, information technology (IT) supported reporting system named central medication incidents registration (CMR) was developed. This article describes the architecture, implementation and current status of the CMR in The Netherlands and compare it with similar systems in other countries. Adequate IT is required to sufficiently support a multicenter reporting system. The CMR system consists of a website, a database, a web-based reporting form, an application to import reports generated in other reporting systems, an application to generate an overview of reported medication incidents, and a national warning system for healthcare providers. From the start of CMR 90 of all 93 (96.8%) hospitals and 872 of 1948 (44.8%) community pharmacies participated. Between March 2006 and March 2010 the CMR comprised 15,694 reports of incidents. In the period from March 2010 to March 2011, 1642 reports were submitted by community pharmacies in CMR and the hospitals submitted 2517 reports. CMR is similar to various systems in other countries, but it seems to use more IT applications. The CMR is developing into a nationwide reporting system of medication incidents in The Netherlands, in which hospitals, community pharmacies, mental healthcare organizations and general practitioners participate. The architecture of the system met the requirements of a nationwide reporting system across different healthcare providers.

Does the implementation of an electronic prescribing system create unintended medication errors? A study of the sociotechnical context through the analysis of reported medication incidents

BackgroundEven though electronic prescribing systems are widely advocated as one of the most effective means of improving patient safety, they may also introduce new risks that are not immediately obvious. Through the study of specific incidents related to the processes involved in the administration of medication, we sought to find out if the prescribing system had unintended consequences in creating new errors. The focus of this study was a large acute hospital in the Midlands in the United Kingdom, which implemented a Prescribing, Information and Communication System (PICS).MethodsThis exploratory study was based on a survey of routinely collected medication incidents over five months. Data were independently reviewed by two of the investigators with a clinical pharmacology and nursing background respectively, and grouped into broad types: sociotechnical incidents (related to human interactions with the system) and non-sociotechnical incidents. Sociotechnical incidents were distinguished from the others because they occurred at the point where the system and the professional intersected and would not have occurred in the absence of the system. The day of the week and time of day that an incident occurred were tested using univariable and multivariable analyses. We acknowledge the limitations of conducting analyses of data extracted from incident reports as it is widely recognised that most medication errors are not reported and may contain inaccurate data. Interpretation of results must therefore be tentative.ResultsOut of a total of 485 incidents, a modest 15% (n = 73) were distinguished as sociotechnical issues and thus may be unique to hospitals that have such systems in place. These incidents were further analysed and subdivided into categories in order to identify aspects of the context which gave rise to adverse situations and possible risks to patient safety. The analysis of sociotechnical incidents by time of day and day of week indicated a trend for increased proportions of these types of incidents occurring on Sundays.ConclusionIntroducing an electronic prescribing system has the potential to give rise to new types of risks to patient safety. Being aware of these types of errors is important to the clinical and technical implementers of such systems in order to, where possible, design out unintended problems, highlight training requirements, and revise clinical practice protocols.

Medication incidents reported to an online incident reporting system

Approximately 20% of deaths from adverse events are related to medication incidents, costing the NHS an additional £500 million annually. Less than 5% of adverse events are reported. This study aims to assess the reporting rate of medication incidents in NHS facilities in the north east of Scotland, and to describe the types and outcomes of reported incidents among different services. Furthermore, we wished to quantify the proportion of reported incidents according to the reporters' profession. A retrospective description was made of medication incidents reported to an online reporting system (DATIX) over a 46-month-period (July 2005 to April 2009). Reports originated from acute and community hospitals, mental health, and primary care facilities. Over the study period there were 2,666 incidents reported with a mean monthly reporting rate of 78.2/month (SD±16.9). 6.1% of all incidents resulted in harm, with insulin being the most commonly implicated medication. Nearly three-quarters (74.2%, n=1,978) of total incidents originated from acute hospitals. Administration incidents were implicated in the majority of the reported medication incidents (59%), followed by prescribing (10.8%) and dispensing (9.9%), while the nondescript "other medication incidents" accounted for 20.3% of total incidents. The majority of reports were made by nursing and midwifery staff (80%), with medical and dental professionals reporting the lowest number of incidents (n=56, 2%). The majority of medication incidents in this study were reported by nursing and midwifery staff, and were due to administration incidents. There is a clear need to elucidate the reasons for the limited contribution of the medical and dental professionals to reporting medication incidents.

Look-alike, sound-alike drugs in oncology

Medication errors with oncology drugs can place cancer patients at risk for adverse events or death. Look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drug names may increase the risk for errors. Published lists of LASA drug names are generally a result of voluntarily reported medication incidents. This study performed a proactive review of the oncology drug formulary from the Cancer Services of the Alberta Health Services for LASA drug pairs. The Levenshtein Distance and Bigram Similarity algorithms, same first and last letters, and Lexi-Comp(R) on-line alerts were used to review the outpatient oncology formulary to identify potential LASA generic drug name pairs. indicate there are more potential LASA generic drug name pairs in the oncology formulary than are published in the literature. The risk detection methods used in this study identified unique and common LASA drug pairs. The Bigram Similarity algorithm identified 186 LASA drug pairs from 3320 possible pairs. The Levenshtein Distance algorithm, same first and last letters, and Lexi-Comp(R) methods identified 42, 75, and 38 LASA drug pairs, respectively. Five generic LASA drug pairs were identified in common by all four of the risk determination methods. LASA drug pairs identified by three or four methods were considered to provide the highest risk for errors. A step-wise approach to risk reduction, dependent on the number of detection methods identifying a pair, is presented. For specialty areas of practice, a proactive system of reviewing LASA drug name pairs may be warranted for increasing medication safety.

Nurses' views on reporting medication incidents.

The purpose of this project was to identify nurses' beliefs about medication incident reporting. A new medication incident form was developed and trialled in six clinical units. Forty-three nurses from these areas were recruited to participate in the project, with a 20-point self-reporting questionnaire and focus group discussions being used to collect the data. Theme analysis of the data was undertaken with the results of the project indicating nurses report medication incidents that are life threatening to patients, but do not want identifying information collected about themselves. This situation represents nurses' fear of reprimand from those in authority and may also indicate an unwillingness to accept responsibility for errors in which they may be merely the final player in a complex series of events. The results of the project also highlight problems associated with self-reported medication incident monitoring and challenge its effectiveness in gathering data required by managers and staff development educators.