BACKGROUND: One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing activity. To monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and safety of this process, evidence-based quality indicators can be used.OBJECTIVES: The aim of study was to identify evidence-based quality indicators (structure, process and outcome) for safe in-hospital medication preparation and administration.METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2015. Additionally, nine databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the method for quality indicator development combined a literature search with expert panel opinion, (2) the study contained quality indicators on medication safety, and (3) any of the quality indicators were applicable to hospital medication preparation and administration. A multidisciplinary team appraised the studies independently using the AIRE instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. Quality indicators applicable to in-hospital medication preparation and administration were extracted using a structured form.RESULTS: The search identified 1683 studies, of which 64 were reviewed in detail and five met the inclusion criteria. Overall, according to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose; most of them applied stakeholder involvement and used evidence reasonably; usage of the indicator in practice was scarcely described. A total of 21 quality indicators were identified: 5 structure indicators (e.g. safety management and high alert medication), 11 process indicators (e.g. verification and protocols) and 5 outcome indicators (e.g. harm and death). These quality indicators partially cover the 7 rights.CONCLUSION: Despite the relatively small number of included studies, the identified quality indicators can serve as an excellent starting point for further development of nursing specific quality indicators for medication safety. Especially on the right patient, right route, right time and right documentation there is room future development of quality indicators.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. Methods: In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. Results: In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. Discussion: A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Many hospitalised patients are affected by medication errors (MEs) that may cause discomfort, harm and even death. Children are at especially high risk of harm as the result of MEs because such errors are potentially more hazardous to them than to adults. Until now, interventions to reduce MEs have led to only limited improvements.OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing MEs and related harm in hospitalised children.SEARCH METHODS: The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following sources for primary studies: The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and the Health Technology Assessments (HTA) database; MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, Web of Science (citation indexes and conference proceedings) and the EPOC Register of Studies. Related reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Review authors searched grey literature sources and trial registries. They handsearched selected journals, contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. They conducted searches in November 2013 and November 2014. They applied neither language nor date limits.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series investigating interventions to improve medication safety in hospitalised children (≤ 18 years). Participants were healthcare professionals authorised to prescribe, dispense or administer medications. Outcome measures included MEs, (potential) patient harm, resource utilisation and unintended consequences of the interventions.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the EPOC data collection checklist. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies and used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence. We described results narratively and presented them using GRADE tables.MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies describing five different interventions: participation of a clinical pharmacist in a clinical team (n = 2), introduction of a computerised physician order entry system (n = 2), implementation of a barcode medication administration system (n = 1), use of a structured prescribing form (n = 1) and implementation of a check and control checklist in combination with feedback (n = 1).Clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Although some interventions described in this review show a decrease in MEs, the results are not consistent, and none of the studies resulted in a significant reduction in patient harm. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality and strengfh of the evidence are low.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on effective interventions to prevent MEs in a paediatric population in hospital is limited. Comparative studies with robust study designs are needed to investigate interventions including components that focus on specific paediatric safety issues.
