Association between workarounds and medication administration errors in bar-code-assisted medication administration in hospitals

Objective: To study the association of workarounds with medication administration errors using barcode-assisted medication administration (BCMA), and to determine the frequency and types of workarounds and medication administration errors. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study in Dutch hospitals using BCMA to administer medication. Direct observation was used to collect data. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of medication administrations with one or more medication administration errors. Secondary outcome was the frequency and types of workarounds and medication administration errors. Univariate and multivariate multilevel logistic regression analysis were used to assess the association between workarounds and medication administration errors. Descriptive statistics were used for the secondary outcomes. Results: We included 5793 medication administrations for 1230 inpatients. Workarounds were associated with medication administration errors (adjusted odds ratio 3.06 [95% CI: 2.49-3.78]). Most commonly, procedural workarounds were observed, such as not scanning at all (36%), not scanning patients because they did not wear a wristband (28%), incorrect medication scanning, multiple medication scanning, and ignoring alert signals (11%). Common types of medication administration errors were omissions (78%), administration of non-ordered drugs (8.0%), and wrong doses given (6.0%). Discussion: Workarounds are associated with medication administration errors in hospitals using BCMA. These data suggest that BCMA needs more post-implementation evaluation if it is to achieve the intended benefits for medication safety. Conclusion: In hospitals using barcode-assisted medication administration, workarounds occurred in 66% of medication administrations and were associated with large numbers of medication administration errors

Factors associated with workarounds in Bar-Code-assisted medication administration in hospitals

Aims and objectives: To identify that workarounds (defined as “informal temporary practices for handling exceptions to normal procedures or workflow”) by nurses using information technology potentially compromise medication safety. Therefore, we aimed to identify potential risk factors associated with workarounds performed by nurses in Barcode-assisted Medication Administration in hospitals. Background: Medication errors occur during the prescribing, distribution and administration of medication. Errors could harm patients and be a tragedy for both nurses and medical doctors involved. Interventions to prevent errors have been developed, including those based on information technology. To cope with shortcomings in information technology-based interventions as Barcode-assisted Medication Administration, nurses perform workarounds. Identification of workarounds in information technology is essential to implement better-designed software and processes which fit the nurse workflow. Design: We used the data from our previous prospective observational study, performed in four general hospitals in the Netherlands using Barcode techniques, to administer medication to inpatients. Methods: Data were collected from 2014–2016. The disguised observation was used to gather information on potential risk factors and workarounds. The outcome was a medication administration with one or more workarounds. Logistic mixed models were used to determine the association between potential risk factors and workarounds. The STROBE checklist was used for reporting our data. Results: We included 5,793 medication administrations among 1,230 patients given by 272 nurses. In 3,633 (62.7%) of the administrations, one or more workarounds were observed. In the multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with workarounds were the medication round at 02 p.m.–06 p.m. (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.05–2.45) and 06 p.m.–10 p.m. (adjusted OR: 3.60, 95% CI: 2.11–6.14) versus the morning shift 06 a.m.–10 a.m., the workdays Monday (adjusted OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.51–4.44), Wednesday (adjusted OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.2–3.07) and Saturday (adjusted OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.31–3.84) versus Sunday, the route of medication, nonoral (adjusted OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.05–1.57) versus the oral route of drug administration, the Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classification-coded medication “other” (consisting of the irregularly used Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classes [D, G, H, L, P, V, Y, Z]) (adjusted OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.05–2.11) versus Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical class A (alimentary tract and metabolism), and the patient–nurse ratio ≥6–1 (adjusted OR: 5.61, 95% CI: 2.9–10.83) versus ≤5–1. Conclusions: We identified several potential risk factors associated with workarounds performed by nurses that could be used to target future improvement efforts in Barcode-assisted Medication Administration. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses administering medication in hospitals using Barcode-assisted Medication Administration frequently perform workarounds, which may compromise medication safety. In particular, nurse workload and the patient–nurse ratio could be the focus for improvement measures as these are the most clearly modifiable factors identified in this study.</p

How safe is primary care? A systematic review

Improving patient safety is at the forefront of policy and practice. While considerable progress has been made in understanding the frequency, causes and consequences of error in hospitals, less is known about the safety of primary care.We investigated how often patient safety incidents occur in primary care and how often these were associated with patient harm.We searched 18 databases and contacted international experts to identify published and unpublished studies available between 1 January 1980 and 31 July 2014. Patient safety incidents of any type were eligible. Eligible studies were critically appraised using validated instruments and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised.Nine systematic reviews and 100 primary studies were included. Studies reported between <1 and 24 patient safety incidents per 100 consultations. The median from population-based record review studies was 2-3 incidents for every 100 consultations/records reviewed. It was estimated that around 4% of these incidents may be associated with severe harm, defined as significantly impacting on a patients well-being, including long-term physical or psychological issues or death (range <1% to 44% of incidents). Incidents relating to diagnosis and prescribing were most likely to result in severe harm.Millions of people throughout the world use primary care services on any given day. This review suggests that safety incidents are relatively common, but most do not result in serious harm that reaches the patient. Diagnostic and prescribing incidents are the most likely to result in avoidable harm.This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42012002304)

Committed to Safety: Ten Case Studies on Reducing Harm to Patients

Presents case studies of healthcare organizations, clinical teams, and learning collaborations to illustrate successful innovations for improving patient safety nationwide. Includes actions taken, results achieved, lessons learned, and recommendations