ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2018
Qualitative exploration of practices to prevent medication errors in neonatal intensive care units: a focus group study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the implementation of clinical pharmacy services on paediatric patient care in hospital settings.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2022Pooled it
- Medication errors in neonatal intensive care units: a multicenter qualitative study in the Palestinian practice.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Drug change: 'a hassle like no other'. An in-depth investigation using the Danish patient safety database and focus group interviews with Danish hospital personnel.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication errors (MEs) in neonates are frequent and associated with increased potential for harm compared with adults. The effect of learning from reported MEs is potentially lacking due to underreporting, lack of feedback and missing actions to improve medication safety. A new approach involving positive recognition of current and future strategies may facilitate greater exploration of how to improve medication safety in neonates. We aimed to explore current and potential future practices to prevent MEs in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).
methodsFocus group interviews of physicians and nurses were conducted at three Danish NICUs. Participants were included if they had at least 1 month of working experience and provided direct patient care. A semistructured interview guide involving three questions was used: (a) how do you feel about discussing prevention of MEs? (b) how do you currently prevent MEs from occurring? and (c) how can we become better at preventing MEs in the future? Content analysis was used to identify themes in the interviews.
resultsParticipants commented that MEs still occur and that action must be taken to improve medication safety. Current practices to prevent MEs involved technology, procedures, education, skills and hospital pharmacy services. Potential future practices to prevent MEs included customizing the computerized physician order entry systems to support optimal prescribing, standardizing the double-check process, training of calculation skills and teamwork and increased use of hospital pharmacy services.
conclusionsSeveral current and potential future practices to reduce MEs in NICUs were identified, highlighting the complexity of MEs. Our findings support an interdisciplinary multifaceted intervention involving both technical and nontechnical elements to improve medication safety in NICUs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.