ABSTRACT
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)
Subject(s)
Humans , Pharmaceutical Preparations/classification , Risk Assessment/methods , Patient Safety , Medication Errors , Risk Management/methods , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/classification , Drug Utilization/classification , Risk Management , Drug Therapy/classification , Drug TherapyABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Patient Safety , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Regional Health Planning/organization & administration , Risk Assessment/methods , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , Information Services , InpatientsABSTRACT
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.
