Identifying High-alert Medications in a University Hospital by Applying Data From the Medication Error Reporting System

2017 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Lotta Tyynismaa ◽  
Anni Honkala ◽  
Marja Airaksinen ◽  
Kenneth Shermock ◽  
Lasse Lehtonen
2005 ◽  
Vol 62 (21) ◽  
pp. 2265-2270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott W. Savage ◽  
Philip J. Schneider ◽  
Craig A. Pedersen

Pharmacy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sri Chalasani ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
Parthasarathi Gurumurthy

Medication errors (MEs) often prelude guilt and fear in health care professionals (HCPs), thereby resulting in under-reporting and further compromising patient safety. To improve patient safety, we conducted a study on the implementation of a voluntary medication error-reporting and monitoring programme. The ME reporting system was established using the principles based on prospective, voluntary, open, anonymous, and stand-alone surveillance in a tertiary care teaching hospital located in South India. A prospective observational study was carried out for three years and a voluntary Medication Error-reporting Form was developed to report medication errors MEs that had occurred in patients of either sex were included in the study, and the reporters were given the choice to remain anonymous. The analysis was carried out and discussed with HCPs to minimise the recurrence. A total of 1310 medication errors were reported among 20,256 hospitalised patients and the incidence was 6.4%. Common aetiologies were administration errors [501 (38.2%)], followed by prescribing and transcribing errors [363 (28%)]. Root-cause of these MEs were distractions, workload, and communications. Analgesics/antipyretics (19.4%) and antibiotics (15.7%) were the most commonly implicated classes of medications. A clinical pharmacist initiated non-punitive anonymous ME reporting system could improve patient safety.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522199431
Author(s):  
Jennifer P Booth ◽  
Julie M Kennerly-Shah ◽  
Amber D Hartman

Introduction To describe pharmacist interventions as a result of an independent double check during cognitive order verification of outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy. Methods A single-center, retrospective analysis of all individual orders for outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer agents within a hematology/oncology infusion center during a 30 day period was conducted. The primary endpoint was error identification rates during first and second verification. Secondary endpoints included the type, frequency, and severity of errors identified during second verification using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index. Results A total of 1970 anti-cancer parenteral orders were screened, from which 1645 received an independent double check and were included. The number of errors identified during first and second verification were 30 (1.8%) and 10 (0.6%) respectively; second verification resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. The 10 errors identified during second verification included: four rate transcriptions to optimize pump interoperability, three rate and/or volume modifications, two dosage adjustments, and one treatment deferral due to toxicity. The severity was classified as Category A for four (40%), Category C for three (30%), and Category D for three (30%) errors. This correlated to a low capacity for harm for seven (70%) and a serious capacity for three (30%) errors. Conclusions Second verification of outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer medication orders resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. Three errors detected during second verification were determined to have a serious capacity for harm, supporting the value of independent double checks during pharmacist cognitive order verification.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document