ReviewDrug safety2003
Reducing medication errors: a regional approach for hospitals.
Review in Drug safety, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of a hybrid decision support system using machine learning with artificial intelligence to safely rule out prescriptions from medication review in daily practice.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Trial
- Assessment of knowledge and attitudes towards safety events reporting among residents in a community health system.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2018Article
- Introduction of pharmaceutical expertise in a palliative care team in Sweden.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2010Article
- What is drug safety?: celebrating 20 years of the Drug Safety journal.Drug safety · 2006Article
- Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the Institute of Medicine's report, To Err Is Human, and the subsequent publication, Crossing the Quality Chasm, the subject of reducing medical errors has gained considerable attention from patients, healthcare providers, employers and government organisations in the US. Most nonoperative errors are related to medications. Medication errors lead not only to negative repercussions subjectively experienced by both the patient and the healthcare staff, but also to additional expenditures due to complications. Education, adapting new safety systems and technology, and having clinical pharmacists play a larger role in the medication process can all help in solving the problem of medication errors. Designing and executing a rational system to reduce medication errors is particularly germane in the current era of increased demands for quality healthcare in the setting of cost-containment pressures. In the Delaware Valley (Philadelphia and surrounding area) of Pennsylvania, USA, a consortium of healthcare providers in cooperation with the Health Care Improvement Foundation (HCIF), and two non-profit oganisations--the ECRI (formerly the Emergency Care Research Institute) and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP)--have combined to establish and promote safe medication practices under a programme known as the Regional Medication Safety Program for Hospitals. At the core of the programme are 16 medication safety goals, which centre on establishing an institutional culture of safety, modifying infrastructure and clinical practice to reflect this culture, and using technology to facilitate these changes. It is believed that this rational campaign to improve patient safety may serve as a paradigm for other regions around the world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14583069What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.