Intervention study for the reduction of medication errors in elderly trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of a set of measures designed by a working group to reduce medication errors (MEs) during the care transition of elderly trauma patients. The secondary objectives were to classify MEs and determine their location. METHODS: A 43-month pre-post prospective intervention study in a university hospital. A working group was set up in the Trauma Service. A pharmacist analysed the pharmacotherapeutic processes of all patients admitted to the Trauma Service in different healthcare locations from Monday to Friday. To detect MEs, the pharmacist reviewed this process at the following points: reconciliation, prescription, validation, dispensing, and administration records. Errors were classified according to the Ruiz Jarabo classification. Subsequently, the working group designed a set of measures that were implemented with the incorporation into the Acute Care Team and the intervention of a pharmacist. Data on MEs were again collected in a post-implementation phase. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in MEs between phases. A total of 132 (31.3%) patients experienced MEs during the pre-implementation phase and 75 (16.2%) during the post-implementation phase. Among the measures implemented, the incorporation of the pharmacist to the team, as well as training sessions and design of medication protocols. During the pre-implementation and post-implementation phases, the ME rates were respectively as follows: reconciliation 31.6% (172) vs 14.8% (91); prescription 7.7% (79) vs 1.9% (23); dispensing 1% (10) vs 0.3% (3); administration record 0.4% (4) vs 0.0% (0); and validation 0.3% (3) vs 0.1% (1). There were significant reductions in reconciliation, prescription, and dispensing errors. The majority of the MEs occurred in the Trauma Service. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of specific measures by a Multidisciplinary Safety Group reduced MEs in the care transition of elderly trauma patients, particularly those MEs that occurred during reconciliation. The greatest reduction in MEs occurred in the Trauma Service.

Grading the potential safety risk of medications used in hospital care / Clasificación de los grupos de medicamentos según su nivel de riesgo en el ámbito hospitalario

Objective: The aim of this study was to stratify medications used in hospital care according to their potential risk. Method: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical subgroups were classified according to their potential risk. A literature search, bulletins, and alerts issued by patient safety organizations were used to identify the potential safety risk of these subgroups. Nine experts in patient/medication safety were selected to score the subgroups for their appropriateness in the classification. Two evaluation rounds were conducted: the first by email and the second by a panel meeting. Results: A total of 298 Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical subgroups were evaluated. They were classified into three scenarios (low, medium, and high risk). In the first round, 266 subgroups were classified as appropriate to the assigned scenario, 32 were classified as uncertain, and none were classified as inappropriate. In the second round, all subgroups were classified as appropriate. The most frequent subgroups in the low-risk scenario belonged to group A "Alimentary tract and metabolism" (44%); the most frequent in the medium-risk scenario belonged to group J "Antiinfectives for systemic use" (32%); and the most frequent in the high-risk scenario belonged to group L "Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents" (29%) and group N "Nervous system" (26%). Conclusions: Based on the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical subgroups used in hospital care were classified according to their potential risk (low, medium, or high). These lists can be incorporated into a risk-scoring tool for future patient/medication safety studies (AU)

Objetivo: Estratificar los medicamentos utilizados en el ámbito hospitalario según el riesgo de provocar daño al paciente. Método: Se utilizó la metodología RAND/UCLA para clasificar los subgrupos terapéuticos del código Anatómica, Terapéutica, Química según el riesgo de provocar daño al paciente. Para ello se realizó una revisión de la evidencia disponible en publicaciones, boletines y alertas de organismos de seguridad del paciente. A continuación se seleccionaron nueve expertos en seguridad del paciente/medicamento para evaluar la clasificación de los subgrupos terapéuticos: una primera ronda de evaluación por vía telemática y una segunda ronda en una reunión presencial en la que se presentaron y discutieron los resultados de la primera. Resultados: Se evaluaron 298 subgrupos terapéuticos. Se clasificaron en tres escenarios (riesgo bajo, medio y alto). En la primera ronda se clasificaron 266 subgrupos como adecuados al escenario asignado, 32 subgrupos fueron clasificados como inciertos y ninguno fue clasificado como inapropiado. En la segunda ronda, todos los subgrupos fueron clasificados como adecuados. Los subgrupos más frecuentes en el escenario de riesgo bajo pertenecieron al Grupo A: "Tracto alimentario y metabolismo" (44%), en el de riesgo medio al Grupo J: "Antiinfecciosos para uso sistémico" (32%), y en el de riesgo alto al Grupo L: "Agentes antineoplásicos e inmunomoduladores" (29%) y al Grupo N: "Sistema nervioso" (26%). Conclusiones: La metodología RAND/UCLA ha permitido estratificar los subgrupos utilizados en el ámbito hospitalario según el riesgo potencial de provocar daño al paciente. Esta estratificación puede servir como herramienta para futuros estudios de seguridad en la utilización de medicamentos (AU)

Grading the potential safety risk of medications used in hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to stratify medications used in hospital  care according to their potential risk. METHOD: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical subgroups were classified according to their potential risk. A literature search, bulletins, and alerts issued by patient safety organizations were used to identify the potential safety risk of  these subgroups. Nine experts in patient/medication safety were selected to score the subgroups for their appropriateness in the classification. Two evaluation rounds were conducted: the first by email and the second by a  panel meeting. RESULTS: A total of 298 Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical subgroups were  evaluated. They were classified into three scenarios (low, medium, and high  risk). In the first round, 266 subgroups were classified as appropriate to the  assigned scenario, 32 were classified as uncertain, and none were classified as  inappropriate. In the second round, all subgroups were classified as appropriate.  The most frequent subgroups in the low-risk scenario belonged to  group A "Alimentary tract and metabolism" (44%); the most frequent in the  medium-risk scenario belonged to group J "Antiinfectives for systemic use"  (32%); and the most frequent in the high-risk scenario belonged to group L  "Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents" (29%) and group N "Nervous  system" (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, Anatomical  Therapeutic Chemical subgroups used in hospital care were classified according  to their potential risk (low, medium, or high). These lists can be incorporated  into a risk-scoring tool for future patient/medication safety studies.

Objetivo: Estratificar los medicamentos utilizados en el ámbito hospitalario según el riesgo de provocar daño al paciente.Método: Se utilizó la metodología RAND/UCLA para clasificar los subgrupos terapéuticos del código Anatómica, Terapéutica, Química según el  riesgo de provocar daño al paciente. Para ello se realizó una revisión de la  evidencia disponible en publicaciones, boletines y alertas de organismos de  seguridad del paciente. A continuación se seleccionaron nueve expertos en  seguridad del paciente/medicamento para evaluar la clasificación de los  subgrupos terapéuticos: una primera ronda de evaluación por vía telemática y  una segunda ronda en una reunión presencial en la que se presentaron y  discutieron los resultados de la primera.Resultados: Se evaluaron 298 subgrupos terapéuticos. Se clasificaron en tres  escenarios (riesgo bajo, medio y alto). En la primera ronda se clasificaron 266  subgrupos como adecuados al escenario asignado, 32 subgrupos fueron  clasificados como inciertos y ninguno fue clasificado como inapropiado. En la  segunda ronda, todos los subgrupos fueron clasificados como adecuados. Los  subgrupos más frecuentes en el escenario de riesgo bajo pertenecieron al Grupo  A: "Tracto alimentario y metabolismo" (44%), en el de riesgo medio al Grupo J:  "Antiinfecciosos para uso sistémico" (32%), y en el de riesgo alto al Grupo L:  "Agentes antineoplásicos e inmunomoduladores" (29%) y al Grupo N: "Sistema  nervioso" (26%).Conclusiones: La metodología RAND/UCLA ha permitido estratificar los  subgrupos utilizados en el ámbito hospitalario según el riesgo potencial de  provocar daño al paciente. Esta estratificación puede servir como herramienta  para futuros estudios de seguridad en la utilización de medicamentos.

A continuous usability evaluation of an electronic medication administration record application.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The complexity of an electronic medication administration record (eMAR) has been underestimated by most designers in the past. Usability issues, such as poorly designed user application flow in eMAR, are therefore of vital importance, since they can have a negative impact on nursing activities and result in poor outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability of an eMAR application during its development. METHODS: A usability evaluation was conducted during the development of the eMAR application. Two usability methods were used: a heuristic evaluation complemented by usability testing. Each eMAR application version provided by the vendor was evaluated by 2 hospital pharmacists, who applied the heuristic method. They reviewed the eMAR tasks, detected usability problems and their heuristic violations, and rated the severity of the usability problems. Usability testing was used to assess the final application version by observing how 3 nurses interacted with the application. RESULTS: Thirty-four versions were assessed before the eMAR application was considered usable. During the heuristic evaluation, the usability problems decreased from 46 unique usability problems in version 1 (V1) to 9 in version 34 (V34). In V1, usability problems were categorized into 154 heuristic violations, which decreased to 27 in V34. The average severity rating also decreased from major usability problem (2.96) to no problem (0.23). During usability testing, the 3 nurses did not encounter new usability problems. CONCLUSION: A thorough heuristic evaluation is a good method for obtaining a usable eMAR application. This evaluation points key areas for improvement and decreases usability problems and their severity.

Effect of an electronic medication administration record application on patient safety.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of an electronic medication administration record (eMAR) application on the rate of medication errors in medication administration recording (ME-MAR). METHODS: A before-and-after, quasiexperimental study was conducted in a university hospital that implemented the eMAR application in March 2014. Data collection was conducted in April 2012 (pre-) and June 2014 (post-) by two pharmacists. The ME-MARs were analysed by the staff involved to identify their cause. The two pharmacists independently classified the ME-MARs. In the case of disagreement, a research team examined the ME-MARs and categorized them by consensus. Three classifications were used: A classic medication error taxonomy and 2 technology-induced error taxonomies. RESULTS: The pharmacists analysed 2835 (pre-) and 2621 (post-) medication administration records (MAR), respectively. Overall, the ME-MAR rate decreased from 48.0% (pre-) to 36.9% (post-) (P < .05). The same types of ME-MAR were observed in both phases except for "MAR with incomplete information," which was not observed in the postimplementation phase. In both phases, the most frequent ME-MAR was "MAR at the wrong time" (MAR before or after medication administration) (31.6% vs 30.2%). The main cause of ME-MARs in both phases was the failure to follow work procedures. The potential future risk of ME-MARs significantly decreased after the eMAR implementation (P < .05). All ME-MARs were "use errors" because of human factors. New ME-MARs (1.24%; n = 12) were observed in the postimplementation phase. CONCLUSION: Use of the eMAR application significantly reduces the rate of ME-MAR and their potential risk. The main cause of ME-MAR was the failure to follow work procedures.

Agreement between the 2009 STOPP Criteria and the 2003 Beers Criteria at the time of hospital admission / Concordancia entre los criterios STOPP 2009 y los Beers 2003 en el momento del ingreso hospitalario

Potentially inappropriate prescription in elderly patients can be evaluated by different methods. The STOPP Criteria and Beers Criteria stand out among the explicit criteria most widely used. Objective: The main objective of this study is to identify the agreement in the detection of potentially inappropriate prescribing between the STOPP criteria and the Beers Criteria, in elderly patients assessed at the time of hospital admission. Method: An observational retrospective study was designed in order to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescription in the habitual treatment before admission, and to compare the agreement in detection capability between the 2003 Beers Criteria and the 2009 STOPP Criteria, in >70-yearold patients with an emergency hospital admission. There was also a specific analysis of the prescription of first-generation antihistamines, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which are considered drugs with irregular management and potential toxicity. Results: The total prevalence of patients with a potentially inappropriate prescription was 23.8% using the Beers Criteria and 33.3% using the STOPP Criteria. There was a low level of agreement between both questionnaires. First-generation antihistamines (Beers) and pharmacological duplication (STOPP J) were the criteria most frequently found. There were differences in the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescription in the four pharmacological groups selected; and in all cases, detection by Beers Criteria was superior. Conclusion: There is no agreement between the STOPP Criteria and the Beers Criteria regarding the detection of patients with potentially inappropriate prescribing at the time of hospital admission (AU)

La prescripción potencialmente inapropiada en personas mayores puede evaluarse mediante diferentes métodos. Entre los criterios explícitos más usados en nuestro país destacan los criterios STOPP y los criterios de Beers. Objetivo: El objetivo principal de este estudio es identificar la concordancia en la detección de prescripción potencialmente inapropiada entre los criterios STOPP y los criterios de Beers, en pacientes mayores valorados en el momento del ingreso hospitalario. Método: Se diseñó un estudio observacional retrospectivo para estimar la prevalencia de prescripción potencialmente inapropiada en el tratamiento habitual previo al ingreso y comparar la concordancia en la capacidad de detección de los criterios Beers 2003 y STOPP 2009 en pacientes mayores de 70 años ingresados por un motivo urgente. Se analizó además de forma específica la prescripción de antihistamínicos de primera generación, antidepresivos tricíclicos, benzodiazepinas e inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina como fármacos de manejo irregular y potencial toxicidad. Resultados: La prevalencia total de pacientes con prescripción potencialmente inapropiada fue del 23,8% utilizando los criterios de Beers y del 33,3% con los STOPP. El grado de concordancia entre ambos cuestionarios fue bajo. Los antihistamínicos de primera generación (Beers) y la duplicidad farmacológica (STOPP J) fueron los criterios encontrados con más frecuencia. Se encontraron diferencias en la prevalencia de prescripción potencialmente inapropiada de los cuatro grupos farmacológicos seleccionados, siendo superior la detección en todos los casos por los criterios de Beers. Conclusión: Los criterios STOPP y Beers no son concordantes en la detección de pacientes con prescripciones potencialmente inapropiadas en el momento del ingreso hospitalario (AU)

Agreement between the 2009 STOPP Criteria and the 2003 Beers Criteria at the time of hospital admission.

Potentially inappropriate prescription in elderly patients can be evaluated by different methods. The STOPP Criteria and Beers Criteria stand out among the explicit criteria most widely used. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to identify the agreement in the detection of potentially inappropriate prescribing between the STOPP criteria and the Beers Criteria, in elderly patients assessed at the time of hospital admission. METHOD: An observational retrospective study was designed in order to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescription in the habitual treatment before admission, and to compare the agreement in detection capability between the 2003 Beers Criteria and the 2009 STOPP Criteria, in >70-yearold patients with an emergency hospital admission. There was also a specific analysis of the prescription of first-generation antihistamines, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which are considered drugs with irregular management and potential toxicity. RESULTS: The total prevalence of patients with a potentially inappropriate prescription was 23.8% using the Beers Criteria and 33.3% using the STOPP Criteria. There was a low level of agreement between both questionnaires. First-generation antihistamines (Beers) and pharmacological duplication (STOPP J) were the criteria most frequently found. There were differences in the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescription in the four pharmacological groups selected; and in all cases, detection by Beers Criteria was superior. CONCLUSION: There is no agreement between the STOPP Criteria and the Beers Criteria regarding the detection of patients with potentially inappropriate prescribing at the time of hospital admission.

La prescripción potencialmente inapropiada en personas mayores puede evaluarse mediante diferentes métodos. Entre los criterios explícitos más usados en nuestro país destacan los criterios STOPP y los criterios de Beers. Objetivo: El objetivo principal de este estudio es identificar la concordancia en la detección de prescripción potencialmente inapropiada entre los criterios STOPP y los criterios de Beers, en pacientes mayores valorados en el momento del ingreso hospitalario. Método: Se diseñó un estudio observacional retrospectivo para estimar la prevalencia de prescripción potencialmente inapropiada en el tratamiento habitual previo al ingreso y comparar la concordancia en la capacidad de detección de los criterios Beers 2003 y STOPP 2009 en pacientes mayores de 70 años ingresados por un motivo urgente. Se analizó además de forma específica la prescripción de antihistamínicos de primera generación, antidepresivos tricíclicos, benzodiazepinas e inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina como fármacos de manejo irregular y potencial toxicidad. Resultados: La prevalencia total de pacientes con prescripción potencialmente inapropiada fue del 23,8% utilizando los criterios de Beers y del 33,3% con los STOPP. El grado de concordancia entre ambos cuestionarios fue bajo. Los antihistamínicos de primera generación (Beers) y la duplicidad farmacológica (STOPP J) fueron los criterios encontrados con más frecuencia. Se encontraron diferencias en la prevalencia de prescripción potencialmente inapropiada de los cuatro grupos farmacológicos seleccionados, siendo superior la detección en todos los casos por los criterios de Beers. Conclusión: Los criterios STOPP y Beers no son concordantes en la detección de pacientes con prescripciones potencialmente inapropiadas en el momento del ingreso hospitalario.

Potential future risk of errors in medication administration recording.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to adapt and assess the interrater reliability of a potential future risk matrix for medication errors in medication administration recording (ME-MAR). METHODS: The study was carried out in a teaching hospital. It was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a consensus method was used in order to adapt the potential future risk matrix published by the National Patient Safety and Otero et al. to the ME-MAR. The consensus method consisted in a nominal group formed by four pharmacists. In the second phase, a multidisciplinary group of experts in patient safety assessed the reliability of the adapted matrix. Five raters evaluated 100 ME-MAR. Its reliability was evaluated using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: In the first phase, two meetings were necessary until consensus was reached to adapt the potential future risk matrix to the ME-MAR. For this purpose, the two following categories were defined: likelihood of ME-MAR's recurrence and most likely consequences of ME-MAR. The definition of each grade of likelihood of recurrence was based on the incidence of ME-MAR from an unpublished study carried out in our hospital. In order to determine the most likely consequences of ME-MAR, a two-dimensional matrix was designed, with severity per type of ME-MAR on one axis and the class of medication on the other. In the second phase, the reliability of the matrix was tested. The overall interrater agreement for the five raters was substantial at 0.68 (Confidence interval 95% 0.60-0.76). CONCLUSION: The adapted matrix of potential future risk to ME-MAR is reliable and can serve as a guide for future studies.