Deterioration of Parkinson's disease during hospitalization: survey of 684 patients

Abstract Background A substantial fraction of Parkinson's disease patients deteriorate during hospitalisation, but the precise proportion and the reasons why have not been studied systematically and the focus has been on surgical wards and on Accident & Emergency departments. We assessed the prevalence and risk factors of deterioration of Parkinson's disease symptoms during hospitalization, including all wards. Methods We invited Parkinson's disease patients from three neurology departments in The Netherlands to answer a standardised questionnaire on general, disease and hospital related issues. Patients who had been hospitalized in the previous year were included and analysed. Possible risk factors for Parkinson's disease deterioration were identified. Proportions were analysed using the Chi-Square test and a logistic regression analysis was performed. Results Eighteen percent of 684 Parkinson's disease patients had been hospitalized at least once in the last year. Twenty-one percent experienced deterioration of motor symptoms, 33% did have one or more complications and 26% had received incorrect anti-Parkinson's medication. There were no statistically significant differences for these variables between admissions on neurologic or non-neurologic wards and between having surgery or not. Incorrect medication during hospitalization was significantly associated with higher risk (OR 5.8, CI 2.5-13.7) of deterioration, as were having infections (OR 6.7 CI 1.8-24.7). A higher levodopa equivalent dose per day was a significant risk factor for deterioration. When adjusting for different variables, wrong medication distribution was the most important risk factor for deterioration. Conclusions Incorrect medication and infections are the important risk factors for deterioration of Parkinson's disease patients both for admissions with and without surgery and both for admissions on neurologic and non-neurologic wards. Measures should be taken to improve care and incorporated in guidelines.</p

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medication errors can occur at any of the three steps of the medication use process: prescribing, dispensing and administration. We aimed to determine the incidence, type and clinical importance of drug administration errors and to identify risk factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective study based on disguised observation technique in four wards in a teaching hospital in Paris, France (800 beds). A pharmacist accompanied nurses and witnessed the preparation and administration of drugs to all patients during the three drug rounds on each of six days per ward. Main outcomes were number, type and clinical importance of errors and associated risk factors. Drug administration error rate was calculated with and without wrong time errors. Relationship between the occurrence of errors and potential risk factors were investigated using logistic regression models with random effects.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-eight nurses caring for 108 patients were observed. Among 1501 opportunities for error, 415 administrations (430 errors) with one or more errors were detected (27.6%). There were 312 wrong time errors, ten simultaneously with another type of error, resulting in an error rate without wrong time error of 7.5% (113/1501). The most frequently administered drugs were the cardiovascular drugs (425/1501, 28.3%). The highest risks of error in a drug administration were for dermatological drugs. No potentially life-threatening errors were witnessed and 6% of errors were classified as having a serious or significant impact on patients (mainly omission). In multivariate analysis, the occurrence of errors was associated with drug administration route, drug classification (ATC) and the number of patient under the nurse's care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Medication administration errors are frequent. The identification of its determinants helps to undertake designed interventions.</p

Percentage of Patients with Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions and Preventability of Adverse Drug Reactions – A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies suggest that preventable adverse drug reactions are a significant burden in healthcare, but no meta-analysis using a standardised definition for adverse drug reactions exists. The aim of the study was to estimate the percentage of patients with preventable adverse drug reactions and the preventability of adverse drug reactions in adult outpatients and inpatients. METHODS: Studies were identified through searching Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, IPA, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science in September 2010, and by hand searching the reference lists of identified papers. Original peer-reviewed research articles in English that defined adverse drug reactions according to WHO's or similar definition and assessed preventability were included. Disease or treatment specific studies were excluded. Meta-analysis on the percentage of patients with preventable adverse drug reactions and the preventability of adverse drug reactions was conducted. RESULTS: Data were analysed from 16 original studies on outpatients with 48797 emergency visits or hospital admissions and from 8 studies involving 24128 inpatients. No studies in primary care were identified. Among adult outpatients, 2.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-3.2%) had preventable adverse drug reactions and 52% (95% CI: 42-62%) of adverse drug reactions were preventable. Among inpatients, 1.6% (95% CI: 0.1-51%) had preventable adverse drug reactions and 45% (95% CI: 33-58%) of adverse drug reactions were preventable. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis corroborates that preventable adverse drug reactions are a significant burden to healthcare among adult outpatients. Among both outpatients and inpatients, approximately half of adverse drug reactions are preventable, demonstrating that further evidence on prevention strategies is required. The percentage of patients with preventable adverse drug reactions among inpatients and in primary care is largely unknown and should be investigated in future research