Observational studyBMJ open2020
What do double-check routines actually detect? An observational assessment and qualitative analysis of identified inconsistencies.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators for Medication Safety in Emergency Care Using a SEIPS Model: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Translating Nursing Data into Computational Metrics: An Evaluation Guideline for Inpatient Intravenous and Subcutaneous Insulin Management.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Task sharing in an interprofessional medication management program - a survey of general practitioners and community pharmacists.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDouble checking is used in oncology to detect medication errors before administering chemotherapy. The objectives of the study were to determine the frequency of detected potential medication errors, i.e., mismatching information, and to better understand the nature of these inconsistencies.
designIn observing checking procedures, field noteswere taken of all inconsistencies that nurses identified during double checking the order against the prepared chemotherapy.
settingOncological wards and ambulatory infusion centres of three Swiss hospitals.
participantsNurses' double checking was observed. OUTCOME MEASURES: In a qualitative analysis, (1) a category system for the inconsistencies was developed and (2) independently applied by two researchers.
resultsIn 22 (3.2%) of 690 observed double checks, 28 chemotherapy-related inconsistencies were detected. Half of them related to non-matching information between order and drug label, while the other half was identified because the nurses used their own knowledge. 75% of the inconsistencies could be traced back to inappropriate orders, and the inconsistencies led to 33 subsequent or corrective actions.
conclusionsIn double check situations, the plausibility of the medication is often reviewed. Additionally, they serve as a correction for errors and that are made much earlier in the medication process, during order. Both results open up new opportunities for improving the medication process.
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.