Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25836318›Full record

ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2015

Prospective, controlled study of an intervention to reduce errors in neonatal antibiotic orders.

S S Garner, T H Cox, E G Hill, M G Irving, R L Bissinger, D J Annibale

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
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

6 authors.

S S Garner1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcome Sciences, South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA [2] Center for Medication Safety, South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA [3] Department of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA [4] Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
T H Cox1] Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcome Sciences, South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA [2] Department of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
E G HillDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
M G IrvingOffice of the Chief Medical Information Office, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
R L BissingerDepartment of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
D J AnnibaleDepartment of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive computerized order set with decision support (ICOS-DS) in preventing medication errors in neonatal late-onset sepsis (LOS). STUDY

designProspective, controlled comparison of error rates in antibiotic orders for neonates admitted to the Medical University of South Carolina neonatal intensive care unit with suspected LOS (after postnatal day of life 3) prior to (n=153) and after (n=146) implementation of the ICOS-DS. Antibiotic orders were independently evaluated by two pharmacists for prescribing errors, potential errors and omissions. Prescribing errors included>10% overdoses or underdoses, inappropriate route, schedule or antibiotic, drug-drug or drug-disease interactions, and incorrect patient demographics. Potential errors included misspelled drugs, leading decimals, trailing zeroes, impractical doses and error-prone abbreviations. Multiple errors and omissions in an order were counted individually.

resultsOverall error rate per order decreased from 1.7 to 0.8 (P<0.001) and potential error rate from 1.0 to 0.06 (P<0.001). The reduction in omission error rate per order from 0.2 to 0.1 was not significant (P=0.17). The prescribing error rate per order increased from 0.4 to 0.7 (P=0.03) because of the use of incorrect patient weights (P<0.001). Renal dysfunction was significantly associated with an increased risk of prescribing errors (odds ratio=3.7, P=0.01) which was not significantly different for handwritten versus ICOS-DS orders (P=0.15).

conclusionsThe ICOS-DS significantly improved the quality of neonatal LOS antibiotic orders although the use of incorrect patient weights was increased. In both groups, orders for patients with renal dysfunction were at risk for prescribing errors. Further evaluation of interventions to promote medication safety for this population is needed.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug PrescriptionsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalLate Onset DisordersMedication ErrorsPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesSepsisAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID25836318

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.