Direct oral anticoagulant plasma level measurement in clinical practice: A French single-institution retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: To describe patient characteristics and clinical situations where DOAC assays were ordered and determine whether the assays indications and subsequent patient management were consistent with current guidelines. METHODS: Retrospective study of data from patients with prescriptions for three DOACs: dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban treated at Percy Military Hospital (France) between 2016 and 2019. RESULTS: During the study period, 196 DOAC measurements were performed on 148 patients (median age: 82.5 years). The most frequently prescribed DOAC was rivaroxaban (57.5%) and the commonest indication was nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (77%). Measurements were performed on 3.5% of patients with an active prescription for DOAC, and DOAC prescriptions complied with the product's characteristic summary in 62.8% of cases. The number of assays performed increased 2.5-fold between 2017 and 2019. Most DOAC assays were ordered due to emergency surgery or procedures (46.9%), bleeding (19.9%) or a risk of drug accumulation (13.8%). Time from the last DOAC dose to sample collection was specified in the medical file in only 25.5% of cases. Reasons for ordering DOAC measurements were consistent with the guidelines in 87.2% of cases. Subsequent clinical decisions were consistent with the guidelines in 86.2% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: DOAC assays ordering frequency was rare but increased during study. Acute clinical situations were the most common source of test orders. A correct interpretation of the results and subsequent management occurred in most but not all cases, indicating the need for additional education for physicians to raise awareness about tests indications and results interpretation.

Medication dispensing errors in a French military hospital pharmacy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and the primary types of medication dispensing errors detected by pharmacists during implementation of a unit dose drug dispensing system. SETTING: The central pharmacy at the Percy French military hospital (France). METHOD: The check of the unit dose medication cassettes was performed by pharmacists to identify dispensing errors before delivering to the care units. From April 2006 to December 2006, detected errors were corrected and recorded into seven categories: unauthorized drug, wrong dosage-form, improper dose, omission, wrong time, deteriorated drug, and wrong patient errors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Dispensing error rate, calculated by dividing the total of detected errors by the total of filled and omitted doses; classification of recorded dispensing errors. RESULTS: During the study, 9,719 unit dose medication cassettes were filled by pharmacy technicians. Pharmacists detected 706 errors for a total of 88,609 filled and omitted unit doses. An overall error rate of 0.80% was found. There were approximately 0.07 detected dispensing errors per medication cassette. The most common error types were improper dose errors (n = 265, 37.5%) and omission errors (n = 186, 26.3%). Many causes may probably explain the occurrence of dispensing errors, including communication failures, problems related to drug labeling or packaging, distractions, interruptions, heavy workload, and difficulties in reading handwriting prescriptions. CONCLUSION: The results showed that a wide range of errors occurred during the dispensing process. A check performed after the initial medication selection is also necessary to detect and correct dispensing errors. In order to decrease the occurrence of dispensing errors, some practical measures have been implemented in the central pharmacy. But because some dispensing errors may remain undetected, there is a requirement to develop other strategies that reduce or eliminate these errors. The pharmacy staff is widely involved in this duty.

Frequency, types, and potential clinical significance of medication-dispensing errors.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many dispensing errors occur in the hospital, and these can endanger patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of dispensing errors by a unit dose drug dispensing system, to categorize the most frequent types of errors, and to evaluate their potential clinical significance. METHODS: A prospective study using a direct observation method to detect medication-dispensing errors was used. From March 2007 to April 2007, 'errors detected by pharmacists' and 'errors detected by nurses' were recorded under six categories: unauthorized drug, incorrect form of drug, improper dose, omission, incorrect time, and deteriorated drug errors. The potential clinical significance of the 'errors detected by nurses' was evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 734 filled medication cassettes, 179 errors were detected corresponding to a total of 7249 correctly fulfilled and omitted unit doses. An overall error rate of 2.5% was found. Errors detected by pharmacists and nurses represented 155 (86.6%) and 24 (13.4%) of the 179 errors, respectively. The most frequent types of errors were improper dose (n = 57, 31.8%) and omission (n = 54, 30.2%). Nearly 45% of the 24 errors detected by nurses had the potential to cause a significant (n = 7, 29.2%) or serious (n = 4, 16.6%) adverse drug event. CONCLUSIONS: Even if none of the errors reached the patients in this study, a 2.5% error rate indicates the need for improving the unit dose drug-dispensing system. Furthermore, it is almost certain that this study failed to detect some medication errors, further arguing for strategies to prevent their recurrence.

Frequency, types, and potential clinical significance of medication-dispensing errors

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many dispensing errors occur in the hospital, and these can endanger patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of dispensing errors by a unit dose drug dispensing system, to categorize the most frequent types of errors, and to evaluate their potential clinical significance. METHODS: A prospective study using a direct observation method to detect medication-dispensing errors was used. From March 2007 to April 2007, "errors detected by pharmacists" and "errors detected by nurses" were recorded under six categories: unauthorized drug, incorrect form of drug, improper dose, omission, incorrect time, and deteriorated drug errors. The potential clinical significance of the "errors detected by nurses" was evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 734 filled medication cassettes, 179 errors were detected corresponding to a total of 7249 correctly fulfilled and omitted unit doses. An overall error rate of 2.5 percent was found. Errors detected by pharmacists and nurses represented 155 (86.6 percent) and 24 (13.4 percent) of the 179 errors, respectively. The most frequent types of errors were improper dose (n = 57, 31.8 percent) and omission (n = 54, 30.2 percent). Nearly 45 percent of the 24 errors detected by nurses had the potential to cause a significant (n = 7, 29.2 percent) or serious (n = 4, 16.6 percent) adverse drug event. CONCLUSIONS: Even if none of the errors reached the patients in this study, a 2.5 percent error rate indicates the need for improving the unit dose drug-dispensing system. Furthermore, it is almost certain that this study failed to detect some medication errors, further arguing for strategies to prevent their recurrence.