Observational studyPloS one2024
How to get over with medication errors underestimation? Improving indices of medication errors with focus on intravenous medications in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation setting; a direct observation study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe administration of intravenous (IV) medications is a technically complicated and error-prone process. Especially, in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) setting where toxic drugs are frequently used and patients are in critical immunocompromised conditions, medication errors (ME) can have catastrophic reactions and devastating outcomes such as death. Studies on ME are challenging due to poor methodological approaches and complicated interpretations. Here, we tried to resolve this problem using reliable methods and by defining new denominators, as a crucial part of an epidemiological approach.
methodsThis was an observational, cross-sectional study. A total of 525 episodes of IV medication administration were reviewed by a pharmacist using the disguised direct observation method to evaluate the preparation and administration processes of 32 IV medications in three HSCT wards. We reported errors in 3 ratios; 1) Total Opportunities for Error (TOE; the number of errors/sum of all administered doses observed plus omitted medications), 2) Proportional Error Ratio (the number of errors for each drug or situation/total number of detected errors) and, 3) Corrected Total Opportunities for Errors (CTOE; the number of errors/ Sum of Potential Errors (SPE)).
resultsA total of 1,568 errors were observed out of 5,347 total potential errors. TOE was calculated as 2.98 or 298% and CTOE as 29.3%. Most of the errors occurred at the administration step. The most common potential errors were the use of an incorrect volume of the reconstitution solvent during medication preparation and lack of monitoring in the administration stage.
conclusionMedication errors frequently occur during the preparation and administration of IV medications in the HSCT setting. Using precise detection methods, denominators, and checklists, we identified the most error-prone steps during this process, for which there is an urgent need to implement effective preventive measures. Our findings can help plan targeted preventive measures and investigate their effectiveness, specifically in HSCT settings.
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.