Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21142271›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2011

Detecting medication errors in the New Zealand pharmacovigilance database: a retrospective analysis.

Desireé L Kunac, Michael V Tatley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Investigation of the characteristics of medication errors and adverse drug reactions using pharmacovigilance data in China.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Desireé L KunacNew Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. desiree.kunac@otago.ac.nz
Michael V Tatley
University of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the traditional focus being adverse drug reactions (ADRs), pharmacovigilance centres have recently been identified as a potentially rich and important source of medication error data.

objectiveTo identify medication errors in the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance database (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring [CARM]), and to describe the frequency and characteristics of these events.

methodsA retrospective analysis of the CARM pharmacovigilance database operated by the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre was undertaken for the year 1 January-31 December 2007. All reports, excluding those relating to vaccines, clinical trials and pharmaceutical company reports, underwent a preventability assessment using predetermined criteria. Those events deemed preventable were subsequently classified to identify the degree of patient harm, type of error, stage of medication use process where the error occurred and origin of the error.

resultsA total of 1412 reports met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, of which 4.3% (61/1412) were deemed preventable. Not all errors resulted in patient harm: 29.5% (18/61) were 'no harm' errors but 65.5% (40/61) of errors were deemed to have been associated with some degree of patient harm (preventable adverse drug events [ADEs]). For 5.0% (3/61) of events, the degree of patient harm was unable to be determined as the patient outcome was unknown. The majority of preventable ADEs (62.5% [25/40]) occurred in adults aged 65 years and older. The medication classes most involved in preventable ADEs were antibacterials for systemic use and anti-inflammatory agents, with gastrointestinal and respiratory system disorders the most common adverse events reported. For both preventable ADEs and 'no harm' events, most errors were incorrect dose and drug therapy monitoring problems consisting of failures in detection of significant drug interactions, past allergies or lack of necessary clinical monitoring. Preventable events were mostly related to the prescribing and administration stages of the medication use process, with the majority of errors 82.0% (50/61) deemed to have originated in the community setting.

conclusionsThe CARM pharmacovigilance database includes medication errors, many of which were found to originate in the community setting and reported as ADRs. Error-prone situations were able to be identified, providing greater opportunity to improve patient safety. However, to enhance detection of medication errors by pharmacovigilance centres, reports should be prospectively reviewed for preventability and the reporting form revised to facilitate capture of important information that will provide meaningful insight into the nature of the underlying systems defects that caused the error.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAdolescentAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug InteractionsDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansInfantMalePharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID21142271
OpenAlexW116834001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.