Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33240478›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in drug safety2020

Interventions to reduce medication errors in adult medical and surgical settings: a systematic review.

Elizabeth Manias, Snezana Kusljic, Angela Wu

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth ManiasSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3747-0087
Snezana KusljicDepartment of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2465-9884
Angela WuMelbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsMedication errors occur at any point of the medication management process, and are a major cause of death and harm globally. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of different interventions in reducing prescribing, dispensing and administration medication errors in acute medical and surgical settings.

methodsThe protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019124587). The library databases, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to February 2019. Studies were included if they involved testing of an intervention aimed at reducing medication errors in adult, acute medical or surgical settings. Meta-analyses were performed to examine the effectiveness of intervention types.

resultsA total of 34 articles were included with 12 intervention types identified. Meta-analysis showed that prescribing errors were reduced by pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, computerised medication reconciliation, pharmacist partnership, prescriber education, medication reconciliation by trained mentors and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) as single interventions. Medication administration errors were reduced by CPOE and the use of an automated drug distribution system as single interventions. Combined interventions were also found to be effective in reducing prescribing or administration medication errors. No interventions were found to reduce dispensing error rates. Most studies were conducted at single-site hospitals, with chart review being the most common method for collecting medication error data. Clinical significance of interventions was examined in 21 studies. Since many studies were conducted in a pre-post format, future studies should include a concurrent control group.

conclusionThe systematic review identified a number of single and combined intervention types that were effective in reducing medication errors, which clinicians and policymakers could consider for implementation in medical and surgical settings. New directions for future research should examine interdisciplinary collaborative approaches comprising physicians, pharmacists and nurses. LAY SUMMARY:

introductionMedication errors or mistakes may happen at any time in hospital, and they are a major reason for death and harm around the world.

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of different activities in reducing medication errors occurring with prescribing, giving and supplying medications in adult medical and surgical settings in hospital.

methodsSix library databases were examined from the time they were developed to February 2019. Studies were included if they involved testing of an activity aimed at reducing medication errors in adult medical and surgical settings in hospital. Statistical analysis was used to look at the success of different types of activities.

resultsA total of 34 studies were included with 12 activity types identified. Statistical analysis showed that prescribing errors were reduced by pharmacists matching medications, computers matching medications, partnerships with pharmacists, prescriber education, medication matching by trained physicians, and computerised physician order entry (CPOE). Medication-giving errors were reduced by the use of CPOE and an automated medication distribution system. The combination of different activity types were also shown to be successful in reducing prescribing or medication-giving errors. No activities were found to be successful in reducing errors relating to supplying medications. Most studies were conducted at one hospital with reviewing patient charts being the most common way for collecting information about medication errors. In 21 out of 34 articles, researchers examined the effect of activity types on patient harm caused by medication errors. Many studies did not involve the use of a control group that does not receive the activity.

conclusionA number of activity types were shown to be successful in reducing prescribing and medication-giving errors. New directions for future research should examine activities comprising health professionals working together.

Indexed as

hospitalsmedical order entry systemsmedication errorsmedication reconciliationmedication therapy managementnursespatient safetypharmacistsphysicianssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33240478
PMCPMC7672746
OpenAlexW3102017419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.