What are incident reports telling us? A comparative study at two Australian hospitals of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system.

OBJECTIVES: To (i) compare medication errors identified at audit and observation with medication incident reports; (ii) identify differences between two hospitals in incident report frequency and medication error rates; (iii) identify prescribing error detection rates by staff. DESIGN: Audit of 3291 patient records at two hospitals to identify prescribing errors and evidence of their detection by staff. Medication administration errors were identified from a direct observational study of 180 nurses administering 7451 medications. Severity of errors was classified. Those likely to lead to patient harm were categorized as 'clinically important'. SETTING: Two major academic teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of medication errors identified from audit and from direct observation were compared with reported medication incident reports. RESULTS: A total of 12 567 prescribing errors were identified at audit. Of these 1.2/1000 errors (95% CI: 0.6-1.8) had incident reports. Clinically important prescribing errors (n = 539) were detected by staff at a rate of 218.9/1000 (95% CI: 184.0-253.8), but only 13.0/1000 (95% CI: 3.4-22.5) were reported. 78.1% (n = 421) of clinically important prescribing errors were not detected. A total of 2043 drug administrations (27.4%; 95% CI: 26.4-28.4%) contained ≥ 1 errors; none had an incident report. Hospital A had a higher frequency of incident reports than Hospital B, but a lower rate of errors at audit. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors with the potential to cause harm frequently go undetected. Reported incidents do not reflect the profile of medication errors which occur in hospitals or the underlying rates. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of using incident frequency to compare patient risk or quality performance within or across hospitals. New approaches including data mining of electronic clinical information systems are required to support more effective medication error detection and mitigation.

The effect of caffeine on postoperative urinary retention after joint replacement surgery.

BACKGROUND: Review of data on complications following joint replacement surgery revealed that urinary retention is a potential cause of increased morbidity. Repeat catheterizations, urinary tract infections, and possible infection of the prosthetic joint can result in a prolonged hospital length of stay. This study examined the effect of warm caffeinated coffee on a patient's ability to spontaneously void after indwelling catheter removal and the correlation between bladder volume and the ability to void spontaneously. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, pilot study of subjects who underwent unilateral total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The indwelling catheter was removed postoperative day 1. If unable to void within 3 hours, participants were randomized into a control group and an intervention group. At scheduled intervals, the control group consumed 8 oz of warm water and the intervention group consumed 8 oz of caffeinated coffee. RESULTS: Thirty subjects were randomized; 14 were randomized to the water group and 16 to the caffeine group. Twenty-four subjects spontaneously voided after ingestion of fluid and six required straight catheterization. Of these six, five of the subjects had ingested water and one subject had ingested coffee. For those who spontaneously voided, there was not a significant difference between the caffeine group and the water group. There was a significant difference between caffeine ingestion and the volume of the void. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study suggest that ingestion of caffeine after removal of an indwelling urinary catheter in the postoperative patient may increase the amount of voiding volumes initially, therefore avoiding the need for straight catheterization. To accurately assess this, extending the study into postoperative day 2 would allow us to evaluate whether lower voiding volumes lead to the need for catheterization.

Best practice wound care.

This article describes the barriers, changes and achievements related to implementing one element of a wound care programme being best practice care. With the absence of a coordinated approach to wound care, clinical practice within our Area Health Service (AHS) was diverse, inconsistent and sometimes outdated. This was costly and harmful, leading to overuse of unhelpful care, underuse of effective care and errors in execution. The major aim was to improve the outcomes and quality of life for patients with wound care problems within our community. A collaborative across ten sites/services developed, implemented and evaluated policies and guidelines based on evidence-based bundles of care. Key barriers were local resistance and lack of experience in implementing structural and cultural changes. This was addressed by appointing a wound care programme manager, commissioning of a strategic oversight committee and local wound care committees. The techniques of spread and adoption were used, with early adopters making changes observable and allowing local adaption of guidelines, where appropriate. Deployment and improvement results varied across the sites, ranging from activity but no changes in practice to modest improvement in practice. Evaluating implementation of the leg ulcer guideline as an exemplar, it was demonstrated that there was a statistically significant improvement in overall compliance from 26% to 84%. However, only 7·7% of patients received all interventions to which they were entitled. Compliance with the eight individual interventions of the bundle ranged from 26% to 84%. Generic performance was evaluated against the wound assessment, treatment and evaluation plan with an average compliance of 70%. Early results identified that 20% of wounds were healed within the target of 10 days. As more standardised process are implemented, clinical outcomes should continue to improve and costs decrease.