Developing a process to measure actual harm from medication errors in paediatric inpatients: From design to implementation.

AIMS: The potential harm associated with medication errors is widely reported, but data on actual harm are limited. When actual harm has been measured, assessment processes are often poorly described, limiting their ability to be reproduced by other studies. Our aim was to design and implement a new process to assess actual harm resulting from medication errors in paediatric inpatient care. METHODS: Prescribing errors were identified through retrospective medical record reviews (n = 26 369 orders) and medication administration errors through direct observation (n = 5137 administrations) in a tertiary paediatric hospital. All errors were assigned potential harm severity ratings on a 5-point scale. Multidisciplinary panels reviewed case studies for patients assigned the highest three potential severity ratings and determined the following: actual harm occurrence and severity level, plausibility of a link between the error(s) and identified harm(s) and a confidence rating if no harm had occurred. RESULTS: Multidisciplinary harm panels (n = 28) reviewed 566 case studies (173 prescribing related and 393 administration related) and found evidence of actual harm in 89 (prescribing = 22, administration = 67). Eight cases of serious harm cases were found (prescribing = 1, administration = 7) and no cases of severe harm. The panels were very confident in 65% of cases (n = 302) where no harm was found. Potential and actual harm ratings varied. CONCLUSIONS: This harm assessment process provides a systematic method for determining actual harm from medication errors. The multidisciplinary nature of the panels was critical in evaluating specific clinical, therapeutic and contextual considerations including care delivery pathways, therapeutic dose ranges and drug-drug and drug-disease interactions.

Short- and long-term effects of an electronic medication management system on paediatric prescribing errors.

Electronic medication management (eMM) systems are designed to improve safety, but there is little evidence of their effectiveness in paediatrics. This study assesses the short-term (first 70 days of eMM use) and long-term (one-year) effectiveness of an eMM system to reduce prescribing errors, and their potential and actual harm. We use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) at a paediatric referral hospital, with eight clusters randomised for eMM implementation. We assess long-term effects from an additional random sample of medication orders one-year post-eMM. In the SWCRCT, errors that are potential adverse drug events (ADEs) are assessed for actual harm. The study comprises 35,260 medication orders for 4821 patients. Results show no significant change in overall prescribing error rates in the first 70 days of eMM use (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.05 [95%CI 0.92-1.21], but a 62% increase (IRR 1.62 [95%CI 1.28-2.04]) in potential ADEs suggesting immediate risks to safety. One-year post-eMM, errors decline by 36% (IRR 0.64 [95%CI 0.56-0.72]) and high-risk medication errors decrease by 33% (IRR 0.67 [95%CI 0.51-0.88]) compared to pre-eMM. In all periods, dose error rates are more than double that of other error types. Few errors are associated with actual harm, but 71% [95%CI 50-86%] of patients with harm experienced a dose error. In the short-term, eMM implementation shows no improvement in error rates, and an increase in some errors. A year after eMM error rates significantly decline suggesting long-term benefits. eMM optimisation should focus on reducing dose errors due to their high frequency and capacity to cause harm.

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. METHODS: Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. RESULTS: For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings.

Longitudinal study of user experiences of a CPOE system in a pediatric hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the views of nurses and doctors during the early stages of implementation of a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system in a pediatric hospital and to examine changes in perceptions and reported behaviors as use of the CPOE system became routine. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken at four time points following CPOE implementation: during week one, week three, week six and then six months following implementation. In total, 122 users were interviewed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Emergent themes were mapped to the Extended Technology Acceptance Model (e-TAM). RESULTS: Initial perceptions were driven by unfamiliarity with the system. As users became more proficient and efficient in using the CPOE system, additional safety benefits become apparent. However, accompanying increased reports of benefits were reports of usability problems and new types of errors arising from CPOE use. Reports of workarounds appeared for the first time at 6-month interviews. These workarounds were adopted to allow routine work to continue and to attenuate some of the perceived negative consequences of CPOE, including delayed medications and reduced patient interaction. CONCLUSION: This study is one of the first to examine changes in perceptions of CPOE at multiple points, demonstrating the trajectory of changes in views over time. It provides new information about the time point at which workarounds begin to be embedded in practice and are potentially most receptive to identification and remediation. It suggests an adaptive implementation and support program would be beneficial, as reported difficulties and concerns change during the first six months of use.

Introduction of a new observation chart and education programme is associated with higher rates of vital-sign ascertainment in hospital wards.

INTRODUCTION Local and national awareness of the need to improve the recognition and response to the clinical deterioration of hospital inpatients is high. The authors designed and implemented a programme to improve recognition of deteriorating patients in their hospital; a new observation chart for vital signs was one of the major elements. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of the new chart and associated education programme on the completeness of vital-sign recording in ward areas. METHODS The setting is a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. Three study periods, each lasting 14 days (preintervention, 2 weeks postintervention, 3 months postintervention), were carried out in three wards. The new observation chart was supported by an education programme. The primary outcome measures were the ascertainment rates of individual vital signs as a proportion of total observation sets. RESULTS Documentation of respiratory rate increased from 47.8% to 97.8% (p<0.001) and was sustained at 3 months postintervention (98.5%). Collection of a full set of vital signs also improved by a similar magnitude. Basic neurological observation for all patients was introduced in the new chart; the uptake of this was very good (93.1%). Ascertainment rates of blood pressure and oxygen saturation also increased by small but significant amounts from good baseline rates of 97% or higher. CONCLUSION The introduction of a new observation chart, and education regarding its use and importance, was associated with a major improvement in the recording of respiratory rate and other vital signs.