Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30231142›Full record

ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2018

Types and frequency of errors in the preparation and administration of drugs.

Josiane Ribeiro Mendes, Maria Carolina Barbosa Teixeira Lopes, Cássia Regina Vancini-Campanharo, Meiry Fernanda Pinto Okuno, Ruth Ester Assayag Batista

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 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. A refined management system focusing on medication dispensing errors: A 14-year retrospective study of a hospital outpatient pharmacy.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  8. Determining Medication Errors in an Adult Intensive Care Unit.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Intensity of nursing work in public hospitals.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluation of Incompatible Coadministration of Continuous Intravenous Infusions in a Pediatric/Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG
    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

5 authors.

Josiane Ribeiro MendesUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8823-8213
Maria Carolina Barbosa Teixeira LopesUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8989-4404
Cássia Regina Vancini-CampanharoUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7688-2674
Meiry Fernanda Pinto OkunoUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4200-1186
Ruth Ester Assayag BatistaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6416-1079

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify compatibility, types and frequency of errors in preparation and administration of intravenous drugs.

methodsA cross-sectional and descriptive study performed at the emergency department of a university hospital in the city of São Paulo (SP). The sample consisted of 303 observations of the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs by nursing aides, nursing technicians and registered nurses, using a systematized script, similar to a checklist. The following variables were collected: errors related to dispensing, omission, schedule, unauthorized administration, dosage, formulation, incompatibility, preparation and administration.

resultsIn the preparation stage, the following errors were identified: no hand hygiene (70.29%), and no use of aseptic technique (80.85%). Upon administration, no hand hygiene (81.18%), and no use of aseptic technique (84.81%). In 31.35% of observations, there was more than one medication at the same time for the same patient, of which 17.89% were compatible, 56.84% were incompatible and 25.26% were not tested, according to the Micromedex database.

conclusionIn both preparation and administration stages, the most frequent errors were no hand hygiene and no use of aseptic technique, indicating the need to develop and implement education programs focused on patient safety.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesDrug CompoundingEmergency Service, HospitalHand HygieneHospitals, UniversityHumansMedication ErrorsNursesNursing AssistantsPatient SafetyQuality of Health CareRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID30231142
PMCPMC6178856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.