Automated detection of wrong-drug prescribing errors.

BACKGROUND: To assess the specificity of an algorithm designed to detect look-alike/sound-alike (LASA) medication prescribing errors in electronic health record (EHR) data. SETTING: Urban, academic medical centre, comprising a 495-bed hospital and outpatient clinic running on the Cerner EHR. We extracted 8 years of medication orders and diagnostic claims. We licensed a database of medication indications, refined it and merged it with the medication data. We developed an algorithm that triggered for LASA errors based on name similarity, the frequency with which a patient received a medication and whether the medication was justified by a diagnostic claim. We stratified triggers by similarity. Two clinicians reviewed a sample of charts for the presence of a true error, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We computed specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and yield. RESULTS: The algorithm analysed 488 481 orders and generated 2404 triggers (0.5% rate). Clinicians reviewed 506 cases and confirmed the presence of 61 errors, for an overall PPV of 12.1% (95% CI 10.7% to 13.5%). It was not possible to measure sensitivity or the false-negative rate. The specificity of the algorithm varied as a function of name similarity and whether the intended and dispensed drugs shared the same route of administration. CONCLUSION: Automated detection of LASA medication errors is feasible and can reveal errors not currently detected by other means. Real-time error detection is not possible with the current system, the main barrier being the real-time availability of accurate diagnostic information. Further development should replicate this analysis in other health systems and on a larger set of medications and should decrease clinician time spent reviewing false-positive triggers by increasing specificity.

Learning optimal opioid prescribing and monitoring: a simulation study of medical residents.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitalized patients often receive opioids. There is a lack of consensus regarding evidence-based guidelines or training programs for effective management of pain in the hospital. We investigated the viability of using an Internet-based opioid dosing simulator to teach residents appropriate use of opioids to treat and manage acute pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a prospective, longitudinal design to evaluate the effects of simulator training. In face-to-face didactic sessions, we taught 120 (108 internal medicine and 12 family medicine) residents principles of pain management and how to use the simulator. Each trainee completed 10 training and, subsequently, 5 testing trials on the simulator. For each trial, we collected medications, doses, routes and times of administration, pain scores, and a summary score. We used mixed-effects regression models to assess the impact of simulation training on simulation performance scores, variability in pain score trajectories, appropriate use of short- and long-acting opioids, and use of naloxone. RESULTS: Trainees completed 1582 simulation trials (M = 13.2, SD = 6.8), with sustained improvements in their simulated pain management practices. Over time, trainees improved their overall simulated pain management scores (b = 0.05, P < .01), generated lower pain score trajectories with less variability (b = -0.02, P < .01), switched more rapidly from short-acting to long-acting agents (b = -0.50, P < .01), and used naloxone less often (b = -0.10, P < .01). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Trainees translated their understanding of didactically presented principles of pain management to their performance on simulated patient cases. Simulation-based training presents an opportunity for improving opioid-based inpatient acute pain management.

Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains.

BACKGROUND: Drug name confusion is a common type of medication error and a persistent threat to patient safety. In the USA, roughly one per thousand prescriptions results in the wrong drug being filled, and most of these errors involve drug names that look or sound alike. Prior to approval, drug names undergo a variety of tests to assess their potential for confusability, but none of these preapproval tests has been shown to predict real-world error rates. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a study to assess the association between error rates in laboratory-based tests of drug name memory and perception and real-world drug name confusion error rates. METHODS: Eighty participants, comprising doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians and lay people, completed a battery of laboratory tests assessing visual perception, auditory perception and short-term memory of look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs (eg, hydroxyzine/hydralazine). RESULTS: Laboratory test error rates (and other metrics) significantly predicted real-world error rates obtained from a large, outpatient pharmacy chain, with the best-fitting model accounting for 37% of the variance in real-world error rates. Cross-validation analyses confirmed these results, showing that the laboratory tests also predicted errors from a second pharmacy chain, with 45% of the variance being explained by the laboratory test data. CONCLUSIONS: Across two distinct pharmacy chains, there is a strong and significant association between drug name confusion error rates observed in the real world and those observed in laboratory-based tests of memory and perception. Regulators and drug companies seeking a validated preapproval method for identifying confusing drug names ought to consider using these simple tests. By using a standard battery of memory and perception tests, it should be possible to reduce the number of confusing look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs that reach the market, which will help protect patients from potentially harmful medication errors.

Characterizing the pain score trajectories of hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients: a retrospective cohort study.

Pain care for hospitalized patients is often suboptimal. Representing pain scores as a graphical trajectory may provide insights into the understanding and treatment of pain. We describe a 1-year, retrospective, observational study to characterize pain trajectories of hospitalized adults during the first 48 hours after admission at an urban academic medical center. Using a subgroup of patients who presented with significant pain (pain score >4; n = 7762 encounters), we characterized pain trajectories and measured area under the curve, slope of the trajectory for the first 2 hours after admission, and pain intensity at plateau. We used mixed-effects regression to assess the association between pain score and sociodemographics (age, race, and gender), pain medication orders (opioids, nonopioids, and no medications), and medical service (obstetrics, psychiatry, surgery, sickle cell, intensive care unit, and medicine). K-means clustering was used to identify patient subgroups with similar trajectories. Trajectories showed differences based on race, gender, service, and initial pain score. Patients presumed to have dissimilar pain experiences (eg, sickle vs obstetrical) had markedly different pain trajectories. Patients with higher initial pain had a more rapid reduction during their first 2 hours of treatment. Pain reduction achieved in the 48 hours after admission was approximately 50% of the initial pain, regardless of the initial pain. Most patients' pain failed to fully resolve, plateauing at a pain score of 4 or greater. Visualizing pain scores as graphical trajectories illustrates the dynamic variability in pain, highlighting pain responses over a period of observation, and may yield new insights for quality improvement and research.

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices and Poison Control Centers: Collaborating to Prevent Medication Errors and Unintentional Poisonings.

This article provides an overview on the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the only independent nonprofit organization in the USA devoted to the prevention of medication errors. ISMP developed the national Medication Errors Reporting Program (MERP) and investigates and analyzes errors in order to formulate recommendations to prevent further occurrences. ISMP works closely with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), drug manufacturers, professional organizations, and others to promote changes in package design, practice standards, and healthcare practitioner and consumer education. By collaborating with ISMP to share and disseminate information, Poison Control centers, emergency departments, and toxicologists can help decrease unintentional and accidental poisonings.

Establishing an international baseline for medication safety in oncology: Findings from the 2012 ISMP International Medication Safety Self Assessment® for Oncology.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Canada (ISMP Canada) collaborated with an international panel of oncology practitioners to develop the ISMP International Medication Safety Self Assessment® for Oncology. This self-assessment was designed to assist oncology practitioners in hospitals, ambulatory care centers, and office practice settings throughout the world to evaluate safe practices related to medication use in the oncology setting and to identify opportunities for improvement. INSTRUMENT DESIGN: The self-assessment consists of 175 items organized into 10 key elements subdivided into 18 core characteristics of safe medication use. Assessment results were submitted via a secure online portal. The online program allows participants to print and graph their results and to compare their findings with those of similar organizations both nationally and internationally. METHODS: Complimentary access to the self-assessment was made available for a seven-month "snapshot" period in 2012. RESULTS: A total of 352 organizations from 13 countries submitted assessment results. Key opportunities for improvement were identified in five areas: implementation of the World Health Organization recommendations for management of vinCRIStine and other vinca alkaloids, safe management of oral chemotherapy, labeling of distal ends of intravenous tubing, implementation of technology-based safeguards, and patient education. CONCLUSIONS: This international snapshot provides important data about the level of implementation of system-based safeguards in oncology practice, key improvement opportunities, and represents a baseline for future improvement efforts. A collaborative approach to identifying vulnerabilities and developing solutions for safe medication use in oncology will enhance the care of patients with cancer internationally.

Assessing the state of safe medication practices using the ISMP Medication Safety Self Assessment for Hospitals: 2000 and 2011.

BACKGROUND: Since development of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Medication Safety Self Assessment for Hospitals in 2000, hospitals have used the tool to assess medication safety practices and identify opportunities for improvement. The Assessment was updated in 2011 to create a new baseline of hospital medication safety efforts and determine if progress has been achieved in the interim. METHODS: Hospitals in the United States were asked to voluntarily complete the 2011 Assessment and submit their data confidentially to ISMP from April to October 2011. The Assessment contained 270 items organized into 10 key elements and then further divided into 20 core characteristics. RESULTS: By October 2011, 1,310 hospitals had submitted data to ISMP for a response rate of 23% for all 5,786 hospitals. Scores in 2011 increased significantly from 2000. The largest percent improvements were in core characteristics related to communication of drug orders, patient education, and quality processes and risk management. Hospitals in 2011 scored lowest in areas related to patient information, staff competency and education, and drug information. Higher scores for the core characteristics related to the organizational culture and staff education about medication error prevention were associated with higher scores for the core characteristic associated with error detection, reporting, and analysis. Hospitals with a medication safety officer scored higher in all key elements than hospitals without. CONCLUSIONS: While substantial medication safety improvements have been achieved within the last decade, opportunities still exist to improve medication safety. Widespread adoption of key safety strategies will be more effective if influential groups work together and external forces provide the necessary pressure via regulations, standards, public policy, or incentives.

Current practices for labeling medications in hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Good medication labeling practices are imperative to ensure safe medication use. Non-adherence to labeling protocols is reported as one major source of medication errors. OBJECTIVE: This study was intended to evaluate and compare adherence to labeling guidelines for dispensed medications among the hospitals of the five different health sectors in the city of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 14 public hospitals in the city of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Labeling guidelines issued by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices were used as a standard assessment tool. A total of 218 medication labels were collected and evaluated for labeling adequacy. Descriptive statistics were used to elaborate the study findings. All analyses were performed with Microsoft Access. RESULTS: The study showed a substantial rate of adherence to the labeling guidelines. In terms of the established criteria, community and mail orders were reported to adhere strongly (90.5%), whereas injectables adhered least to the labeling guidelines. The labeling format, contents of the label, instructions on the labels, abbreviations used on the labels and drug names were also consistent with the guidelines (80.0%, 84.0%, 88.0%, 97.7% and 85.5%, respectively). Organizations belonging to the public sector reported a higher level of adherence (⩾80.0%) than the level found for private hospitals (70.0%). CONCLUSION: In Riyadh hospitals, medication labeling following the guidelines issued by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, is well accepted and rationally practiced. However, a nationwide study is recommended to evaluate if the guidelines are followed throughout Saudi Arabia.

Comparative risks of non-prescription analgesics: a structured topic review and research priorities.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this report are to quantify and compare competing risks associated with the use of non-prescription analgesics (daily doses of acetaminophen ≤ 4000 mg, aspirin ≤ 4000 mg, ibuprofen ≤ 1200 mg, naproxen ≤ 660 mg and ketoprofen ≤ 75 mg) and identify research needs. METHODS: Literature was searched and organized by medication, adverse effect and direction of effect. Causality was determined using structured consensus, using IOM and GRADE nomenclature. Magnitude of risk data were extracted from primary sources. Structured consensus were used to construct a list of research priorities. RESULTS: The available data favor acceptance of a causal relationship between each of the five analgesics studied and at least one specific form of harm. Dosing in excess of the non-prescription limits is associated with increased risk. Existing data do not support precise estimates of population or individual patient attributable risks for most analgesic and organ system combinations, and as a result competing risks cannot be adequately assessed. The highest priority research needs included understanding 'real world' dosing and how co-morbidities and prodromal symptoms modify exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Although generally safe, all non-prescription analgesics are associated with some harm, particularly when recommended dosing limits are exceeded. Research to quantify the competing risks of different analgesic strategies is urgently needed.

Making inpatient medication reconciliation patient centered, clinically relevant, and implementable: a consensus statement on key principles and necessary first steps.

This white paper identifies potential solutions to help ensure the utility and sustainability of this critical patient safety issue.

Making inpatient medication reconciliation patient centered, clinically relevant and implementable: a consensus statement on key principles and necessary first steps.

Medication errors and adverse events caused by them are common during and after a hospitalization. The impact of these events on patient welfare and the financial burden, both to the patient and the healthcare system, are significant. In 2005, The Joint Commission put forth medication reconciliation as National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) No. 8 in an effort to minimize adverse events caused during these types of care transitions. However, the meaningful and systematic implementation of medication reconciliation, as expressed through NPSG No. 8, proved to be extraordinarily difficult for healthcare institutions around the country. Given the importance of accurate and complete medication reconciliation for patient safety occurring across the continuum of care, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a stakeholder conference in 2009 to begin to identify and address: (1) barriers to implementation; (2) opportunities to identify best practices surrounding medication reconciliation; (3) the role of partnerships among traditional healthcare sites and nonclinical and other community-based organizations; and (4) metrics for measuring the processes involved in medication reconciliation and their impact on preventing harm to patients. The focus of the conference was oriented toward medication reconciliation for a hospitalized patient population; however, many of the themes and concepts derived would also apply to other care settings. This paper highlights the key domains needing to be addressed and suggests first steps toward doing so. An overarching principle derived at the conference is that medication reconciliation should not be viewed as an accreditation function. It must, first and foremost, be recognized as an important element of patient safety. From this principle, the participants identified ten key areas requiring further attention in order to move medication reconciliation toward this focus. 1 There is need for a uniformly acceptable and accepted definition of what constitutes a medication and what processes are encompassed by reconciliation. Clarifying these terms is critical to ensuring more uniform impact of medication reconciliation. 2 The varying roles of the multidisciplinary participants in the reconciliation process must be clearly defined. These role definitions should include those of the patient and family/caregiver and must occur locally, taking into account the need for flexibility in design given the varying structures and resources at healthcare sites. 3 Measures of the reconciliation processes must be clinically meaningful (i.e., of defined benefit to the patient) and derived through consultation with stakeholder groups. Those measures to be reported for national benchmarking and accreditation should be limited in number and clinically meaningful. 4 While a comprehensive reconciliation system is needed across the continuum of care, a phased approach to implementation, allowing it to start slowly and be tailored to local organizational structures and work flows, will increase the chances of successful organizational uptake. 5 Developing mechanisms for prospectively and proactively identifying patients at risk for medication-related adverse events and failed reconciliation is needed. Such an alert system would help maintain vigilance toward these patient safety issues and help focus additional resources on high risk patients. 6 Given the diversity in medication reconciliation practices, research aimed at identifying effective processes is important and should be funded with national resources. Funding should include varying sites of care (e.g., urban and rural, academic and nonacademic, etc.). 7 Strategies for medication reconciliation-both successes and key lessons learned from unsuccessful efforts-should be widely disseminated. 8 A personal health record that is integrated and easily transferable between sites of care is needed to facilitate successful medication reconciliation. 9 Partnerships between healthcare organizations and community-based organizations create opportunities to reinforce medication safety principles outside the traditional clinician-patient relationship. Leveraging the influence of these organizations and other social networking platforms may augment population-based understanding of their importance and role in medication safety. 10 Aligning healthcare payment structures with medication safety goals is critical to ensure allocation of adequate resources to design and implement effective medication reconciliation processes. Medication reconciliation is complex and made more complicated by the disjointed nature of the American healthcare system. Addressing these ten points with an overarching goal of focusing on patient safety rather than accreditation should result in improvements in medication reconciliation and the health of patients.

Harmful medication errors involving unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin in three patient safety reporting programs.

BACKGROUND: External reporting of medical errors a adverse events enables learning from the errors of others in the pursuit of systems-level improvements that can prevent future errors. It is logical to presume that medication errors involving the use of anticoagulants, among the most frequently cited product classes involved in harmful medication errors, would be captured in a variety of patient safety reporting programs. METHODS: Data on reported errors involving the anticoagulant heparin were reviewed, compared, and aggregated from the databases of three large patient safety reporting programs-MEDMARX, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority's Patient Safety Reporting System, and the University Health System Consortium, together representing more than 1,000 reporting organizations for 2005 RESULTS: Approximately 300,000 medication errors and near misses were reported to the programs, and 10,359-a mean of 3.6% (range, 3.1%-5.5%)-involved heparin products. The proportion of heparin-related reports that involved patient harm ranged from 1.4% to 4.9%. The phase of the medication use process cited most frequently in harmful events was the administration phase (56% of errors leading to harm), followed by the prescribing phase (19% of errors leading to harm). DISCUSSION: This study represents the first attempt by these three large reporting systems to combine data on a single clinical process. The consistent patterns evident in the reports, such as the percentage of all medication errors that involved heparin, suggests that reporting programs, at least for common events such as medication errors, may reach a point of diminishing returns in which aggregating more reports of a certain type yields no additional insight once a large volume of similar events is captured and analyzed.

Best Practices in Clinical Decision Support: the Case of Preventive Care Reminders.

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates that clinical decision support (CDS) is a powerful tool for improving healthcare quality and ensuring patient safety. However, implementing and maintaining effective decision support interventions presents multiple technical and organizational challenges. PURPOSE: To identify best practices for CDS, using the domain of preventive care reminders as an example. METHODS: We assembled a panel of experts in CDS and held a series of facilitated online and in-person discussions. We analyzed the results of these discussions using a grounded theory method to elicit themes and best practices. RESULTS: Eight best practice themes were identified as important: deliver CDS in the most appropriate ways, develop effective governance structures, consider use of incentives, be aware of workflow, keep content current, monitor and evaluate impact, maintain high quality data, and consider sharing content. Keys themes within each of these areas were also described. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of CDS requires consideration of both technical and socio-technical factors. The themes identified in this study provide guidance on crucial factors that need consideration when CDS is implemented across healthcare settings. These best practice themes may be useful for developers, implementers, and users of decision support.

Oncology medication safety: a 3D status report 2008.

BACKGROUND: The safe use of medications is a major concern in oncology practice. Three organizations collaborated on a survey to determine if practitioners had implemented current recommended safe practices for IV vincristine administration, general oncology safe practices, and safe practices for oral chemotherapy. METHODS: A survey was distributed to members of the Hematology Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the International Society of Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) using Survey Monkey. The Institute of Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) also solicited readers of its Medication Safety Alert! to respond to the survey. A comparison to results from a survey conducted by ISMP in 2006 on safe practices for IV vincristine was also conducted. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were aware of the WHO recommendations for IV vincristine, although the rate of implementation of the guidelines ranged from 24.1 to 53.6%. When compared to the ISMP 2006 survey there was a 25.8-37.4% improvement in following many of the safe practice guidelines. Administering IV vincristine via a minibag showed the lowest rate of adoption (less than 40%). Of the 35 survey items on general chemotherapy safety strategies, 80% of respondents had implemented at least 21 items in the survey. Overall 32.4% of respondents did not consider oral chemotherapy as requiring the same safety concerns as parenteral therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey will provide a new baseline for the adoption rate of safe medication practice recommendations related to oncology. Further work on addressing barriers in adopting identified safe practice recommendations needs to be conducted.

Findings from the ISMP Medication Safety Self-Assessment for hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medication practices should be assessed, awareness of the characteristics of a safe medication system heightened, and baseline data to identify national priorities established. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of U.S. hospitals (N = 6,180) was conducted in May 2000. The survey instrument contained 194 self-assessment items organized into 20 core characteristics and 10 larger domains. Hospitals were asked to voluntarily submit their confidential assessment data to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) for aggregate analysis. METHOD: A weighting structure was applied to the individual items and used to calculate core characteristic scores, domain scores, and overall self-assessment scores. These scores were then compared to identify areas most in need of improvement. RESULTS: The 1,435 participating hospitals scored highest in domains related to drug storage and distribution; environmental factors; infusion pumps; and medication labeling, packaging, and nomenclature issues. These hospitals scored lowest in domains related to accessible patient information, communication of medication orders, patient education, and quality processes such as double-check systems and organizational culture. CONCLUSIONS: Enormous opportunities exist to improve medication safety, especially in domains related to culture, information management, and communication.

Practical guide to bar coding for patient medication safety.

Bar coding for the medication administration step of the drug-use process is discussed. FDA will propose a rule in 2003 that would require bar-code labels on all human drugs and biologicals. Even with an FDA mandate, manufacturer procrastination and possible shifts in product availability are likely to slow progress. Such delays should not preclude health systems from adopting bar-code-enabled point-of-care (BPOC) systems to achieve gains in patient safety. Bar-code technology is a replacement for traditional keyboard data entry. The elements of bar coding are content, which determines the meaning; data format, which refers to the embedded data and symbology, which describes the "font" in which the machine-readable code is written. For a BPOC system to deliver an acceptable level of patient protection, the hospital must first establish reliable processes for a patient identification band, caregiver badge, and medication bar coding. Medications can have either drug-specific or patient-specific bar codes. Both varieties result in the desired code that supports patient's five rights of drug administration. When medications are not available from the manufacturer in immediate-container bar-coded packaging, other means of applying the bar code must be devised, including the use of repackaging equipment, overwrapping, manual bar coding, and outsourcing. Virtually all medications should be bar coded, the bar code on the label should be easily readable, and appropriate policies, procedures, and checks should be in place. Bar coding has the potential to be not only cost-effective but to produce a return on investment. By bar coding patient identification tags, caregiver badges, and immediate-container medications, health systems can substantially increase patient safety during medication administration.