Aluminium in parenteral nutrition: a systematic review.

Aluminium (Al) toxicity problem in parenteral nutrition solutions (PNS) is decades old and is still unresolved. The aim of this review is to gather updated information about this matter, regarding legislation, manifestations, diagnostics and treatment, patient population at risk and the actions to be taken to limit its accumulation. A structured search using MeSH vocabulary and Title/Abstract searches was conducted in PubMed (http://www.pubmed.gov) up to November 2012. Al is ubiquitous, facilitating its potential for exposure. Nevertheless, humans have several mechanisms to prevent significant absorption and to aid its elimination; therefore, the vast majority of the population is not at risk for Al toxicity. However, when protective gastrointestinal mechanisms are bypassed (for example, parenteral fluids), renal function is impaired (for example, adult patients with renal compromise and neonates) or exposure is high (for example, long-term PNS), Al is prone to accumulate in the body, including manifestations such as impaired neurological development, Alzheimer's disease, metabolic bone disease, dyslipemia and even genotoxic activity. A high Al content in PNS is largely the result of three parenteral nutrient additives: calcium gluconate, inorganic phosphates and cysteine hydrochloride. Despite the legislative efforts, some factors make difficult to comply with the rule and, therefore, to limit the Al toxicity. Unfortunately, manufacturers have not universally changed their processes to obtain a lower Al content of parenteral drug products (PDP). In addition, the imprecise information provided by PDP labels and the high lot-to-lot variation make the prediction of Al content rather inaccurate.

[Comparative study of errors in electronic versus manual prescription]. / Estudio comparativo de errores con prescripción electrónica versus prescripción manual.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic prescribing is considered a basic measure for the prevention and reduction of medications errors. The goal of this survey was to assess the incidence of errors occurring with electronic versus standard prescription. METHOD: A prospective, sequential, open-label study to assess errors with electronic prescribing as compared to traditional manual prescribing in two public hospitals in Balearic Islands. Errors regarding medication, diet and/or nursing orders were assesses along four process stages: medical prescription, pharmacy transcription/validation, nursing transcription, and dispensation. RESULTS: With manual prescription 1,576 errors/18,539 therapy orders (8.50%) were identified, whereas with electronic prescription 827 errors/18,885 therapy orders (4.38%) were detected, which represents a relative risk reduction by 48% and an absolute risk reduction by 4.12% (p < 0.0001). Pharmacy transcription/validation errors decreased (1.73 vs. 0.13%, p < 0.0001), as did nursing transcription errors (2.54 vs. 0.81%, p < 0.0001) and dispensation errors (2.13 vs. 0.96%, p < 0.0001); however, the number of prescription errors increased (2.10 vs. 2.40%, p = 0.0401). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic prescription is a powerful tool, and one that in this work was shown to decrease medication-, diet-, and nursing care-related errors in a highly significant way; however, it should be developed and maintained in order to achieve safety and effectiveness as required by drug usage.

Estudio comparativo de errores con prescripción electrónica versus prescripción manual / Comparative study of errors in electronic versus manual prescription

Objetivo: Evaluar la incidencia de errores que se producencon la prescripción electrónica comparada con la prescripciónmanual.Método: Estudio prospectivo, secuencial y abierto para valorarlos errores con prescripción electrónica comparándola con laprescripción manual tradicional en dos hospitales públicos de lasIslas Baleares. Se han valorado los errores de medicación, dietay/u órdenes de enfermería en cuatro fases del proceso: prescripciónmédica, transcripción/validación en farmacia, transcripciónde enfermería y dispensación.Resultados: Con la prescripción manual se detectaron 1.576errores/18.539 órdenes de tratamiento (8,50%), y con la prescripciónelectrónica 827 errores/18.885 órdenes de tratamiento(4,38%), lo que supone una reducción relativa del riesgo del 48%y una reducción absoluta del riesgo de 4,12% (p < 0,0001). Existeuna disminución de errores de transcripción/validación en farmacia(1,73 vs. 0,13%, p < 0,0001), transcripción de enfermería(2,54 vs. 0,81%, p < 0,0001) y dispensación (2,13 vs. 0,96%, p < 0,0001); sin embargo, en la prescripción se observa un aumentodel número de errores (2,10 vs. 2,40%, p = 0,0401).Conclusiones: La prescripción electrónica es una herramientamuy poderosa que ha mostrado en este trabajo disminuir deforma muy significativa los errores de medicación, dieta y cuidadosde enfermería, pero que hay que desarrollar y mantener paraconseguir la seguridad y efectividad que se pretende en la utilizaciónde medicamentos

Objective: Electronic prescribing is considered a basic measurefor the prevention and reduction of medications errors. Thegoal of this survey was to assess the incidence of errors occurringwith electronic versus standard prescription.Method: A prospective, sequential, open-label study to assesserrors with electronic prescribing as compared to traditional manualprescribing in two public hospitals in Balearic Islands. Errorsregarding medication, diet and/or nursing orders were assessesalong four process stages: medical prescription, pharmacy transcription/validation, nursing transcription, and dispensation.Results: With manual prescription 1,576 errors/18,539 therapyorders (8.50%) were identified, whereas with electronic prescription827 errors/18,885 therapy orders (4.38%) were detected,which represents a relative risk reduction by 48% and an absoluterisk reduction by 4.12% (p < 0.0001). Pharmacy transcription/validationerrors decreased (1.73 vs. 0.13%, p < 0.0001), as did nursingtranscription errors (2.54 vs. 0.81%, p < 0.0001) and dispensationerrors (2.13 vs. 0.96%, p < 0.0001); however, the number ofprescription errors increased (2.10 vs. 2.40%, p = 0.0401).Conclusions: Electronic prescription is a powerful tool, andone that in this work was shown to decrease medication-, diet-,and nursing care-related errors in a highly significant way; however,it should be developed and maintained in order to achieve safetyand effectiveness as required by drug usage