Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: A direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

Background Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. Objectives To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. Methods Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. Results For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). Conclusions Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings

Barriers and supports to implementation of MDI/spacer use in nine Canadian pediatric emergency departments: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite recent research supporting the use of metered dose inhalers with spacer devices (MDI/spacers) in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) for acute exacerbations of asthma, uptake of this practice has been slow. The objectives of this study were to determine the barriers and supports to implementing MDI/spacer research and to identify factors associated with early and late adoption of MDI/spacers in Canadian PEDs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a comparative case study design, we classified nine tertiary care pediatric hospital PEDs based on their stage of implementation. Data were collected using focus group interviews with physicians, registered nurses (RNs), and respiratory therapists (RTs), and individual interviews with both patient care and medical directors at each site. Initial coding was based on the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) categories of elements known to influence the uptake of innovations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and fifty healthcare professionals from nine different healthcare institutions participated in this study. Lack of leadership in the form of a research champion, a lack of consensus about the benefits of MDI/spacers among staff, perceived resistance from patients/parents, and perceived increased cost and workload associated with MDI/spacer use were the most prevalent barriers to the adoption of the MDI/spacer. Common strategies used by early-adopting sites included the active participation of all professional groups in the adoption process in addition to a well-planned and executed educational component for staff, patients, and families. Early adopter sites were also more likely to have the MDI/spacer included in a clinical protocol/pathway.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Potential barriers and supports to implementation have been identified that will help EDs adopt MDI/spacer use. Future interventions intended to increase MDI/spacer use in PEDs will need to be sensitive to the barriers identified in this study.</p

Where, When and Why Brain Activation Differs for Bilinguals and Monolinguals during Picture Naming and Reading Aloud

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we found that when bilinguals named pictures or read words aloud, in their native or nonnative language, activation was higher relative to monolinguals in 5 left hemisphere regions: dorsal precentral gyrus, pars triangularis, pars opercularis, superior temporal gyrus, and planum temporale. We further demonstrate that these areas are sensitive to increasing demands on speech production in monolinguals. This suggests that the advantage of being bilingual comes at the expense of increased work in brain areas that support monolingual word processing. By comparing the effect of bilingualism across a range of tasks, we argue that activation is higher in bilinguals compared with monolinguals because word retrieval is more demanding; articulation of each word is less rehearsed; and speech output needs careful monitoring to avoid errors when competition for word selection occurs between, as well as within, language

Australian clinicians and chemoprevention for women at high familial risk for breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>Effective chemoprevention strategies exist for women at high risk for breast cancer, yet uptake is low. Physician recommendation is an important determinant of uptake, but little is known about clinicians' attitudes to chemoprevention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Focus groups were conducted with clinicians at five Family Cancer Centers in three Australian states. Discussions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty three clinicians, including genetic counselors, clinical geneticists, medical oncologists, breast surgeons and gynaecologic oncologists, participated in six focus groups in 2007. The identified barriers to the discussion of the use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for chemoprevention pertained to issues of evidence (evidence for efficacy not strong enough, side-effects outweigh benefits, oophorectomy superior for mutation carriers), practice (drugs not approved for chemoprevention by regulatory authorities and not government subsidized, chemoprevention not endorsed in national guidelines and not many women ask about it), and perception (clinicians not knowledgeable about chemoprevention and women thought to be opposed to hormonal treatments).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study demonstrated limited enthusiasm for discussing breast cancer chemoprevention as a management option for women at high familial risk. Several options for increasing the likelihood of clinicians discussing chemoprevention were identified; maintaining up to date national guidelines on management of these women and education of clinicians about the drugs themselves, the legality of "off-label" prescribing, and the actual costs of chemopreventive medications.</p

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

Background: Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. Objectives: To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. Methods: Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed—one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients’ medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. Results: For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65–1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65–1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54–0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57–0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). Conclusions: Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings

Factors that influence nurses' assessment of patient acuity and response to acute deterioration.

BACKGROUND: nurses play a crucial role in the early recognition and management of the deteriorating patient. They are responsible for the care they provide to their patients, part of which is the monitoring of vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate and temperature), which are fundamental in the surveillance of deterioration. The aim of this study was to discover what factors influence how nurses assess patient acuity and their response to acute deterioration. METHODS: a generic qualitative approach was used. Some 10 nurses working in an acute NHS trust were interviewed using a semi- structured approach, with equal representation from medical and surgical inpatient wards. RESULTS: the main themes identified were collegial relationships, intuition, and interpretation of the MEWS system (Modified Early Warning Score). Collegial relationships with the medical staff had some influence on the nurses' assessment, as they tended to accept the medical peers' assessment as absolute, rather than their own assessment. It was also highlighted that nurses relied on the numerical escalation of the MEWS system to identify the deteriorating patient, instead of their own clinical judgement of the situation. Interestingly, the nurses found no difficulty in escalating the patient's care to medical staff when the patient presented with a high MEWS score. The difficulty arose when the MEWS score was low-the participants found it challenging to authenticate their findings. CONCLUSION: this study has identified several confounding factors that influence the ways in which nurses assess patient acuity and their response to acute deterioration. The information provides a crucial step forward in identifying strategies to develop further training