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

Improving delirium care in the intensive care unit: The design of a pragmatic study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Delirium prevalence in the intensive care unit (ICU) is high. Numerous psychotropic agents are used to manage delirium in the ICU with limited data regarding their efficacy or harms.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This is a randomized controlled trial of 428 patients aged 18 and older suffering from delirium and admitted to the ICU of Wishard Memorial Hospital in Indianapolis. Subjects assigned to the intervention group will receive a multicomponent pharmacological management protocol for delirium (PMD) and those assigned to the control group will receive no change in their usual ICU care. The primary outcomes of the trial are (1) delirium severity as measured by the Delirium Rating Scale revised-98 (DRS-R-98) and (2) delirium duration as determined by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The PMD protocol targets the three neurotransmitter systems thought to be compromised in delirious patients: dopamine, acetylcholine, and gamma-aminobutyric acid. The PMD protocol will target the reduction of anticholinergic medications and benzodiazepines, and introduce a low-dose of haloperidol at 0.5-1 mg for 7 days. The protocol will be delivered by a combination of computer (artificial intelligence) and pharmacist (human intelligence) decision support system to increase adherence to the PMD protocol.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The proposed study will evaluate the content and the delivery process of a multicomponent pharmacological management program for delirium in the ICU.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00842608">NCT00842608</a></p

A review of three stand-alone topical thrombins for surgical hemostasis

Topical thrombins are active hemostatic agents that can be used to minimize blood loss during surgery. Before 2007, the only topical thrombins available were derived from bovine plasma. Antibody formation to bovine thrombin and/or factor V, with subsequent risk of cross-reactivity with human factor V, and hemorrhagic complications associated with human factor-V deficiencies have been described in case reports of surgeries in which bovine thrombins were used. This risk is now included in the boxed warning section of the bovine thrombin prescribing information. In 2007 and 2008, 2 new topical thrombins from nonbovine sources received approval for use from the US Food and Drug Administration. The 3 active topical thrombins that are currently marketed are bovine plasma-derived thrombin, human plasma-derived thrombin, and human recombinant thrombin.; The purpose of this review was to evaluate the literature on the efficacy and safety of topical thrombins and discuss the pharmacoeconomic considerations associated with their use.; PubMed, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched for relevant papers published in English through October 10,2008, using the terms thrombin, human recombinant thrombin, bovine thrombin, plasma derived thrombin, and topical thrombin. Manufacturer-provided materials were also reviewed. Abstracts and unpublished data, as well as evaluations of sealants, adhesives, glues, and other hemostats that contain thrombin mixed with fibrinogen and other clotting factors, were excluded.; Four randomized, double-blind studies involving the active, stand-alone topical thrombins were found. The bovine thrombin involved in these studies was the predecessor to the currently marketed, highly purified bovine formulation. No studies comparing the human products, studies involving the highly purified bovine preparation, or placebo-controlled studies involving bovine thrombin were found. In a Phase III comparison of human recombinant thrombin and bovine thrombin, the percentages of patients who achieved hemostasis within 10 minutes of topical thrombin application were 95.4% and 95.1%, respectively (95% CI, -3.7 to 5.0). The incidence of hemostasis within 10 minutes was also similar in a Phase III comparison of human plasma-derived thrombin and bovine thrombin (both, 97.4% [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.05]). In the study that compared human recombinant and bovine thrombin, the incidence of antiproduct antibody formation was 21.5% (43/200) in the bovine thrombin group and 1.5% (3/198) in the human recombinant thrombin group (P &lt; 0.001); patients with antibodies to bovine thrombin had numerically higher incidences of bleeding or thromboembolic events than did patients without these antibodies (19% vs 13%; P value not reported). Human plasma-derived thrombin is available as a frozen sterile solution that must be thawed before application, whereas the human recombinant and bovine plasma-derived products are supplied as unrefrigerated sterile powders that must be reconstituted before use. The human thrombins are more costly than bovine thrombin on a per-vial basis. The average wholesale prices (US $, 2008) for 5000-IU vials of bovine thrombin and human recombinant thrombin were$87.85 and $103.20, respectively; the average wholesale price for a 4000- to 6000-IU vial of human plasma-derived thrombin was$96.00.; Topical thrombins vary in the ways in which they are manufactured and their safety profiles, storage requirements, and costs. Human recombinant thrombin and human plasma-derived thrombin have each been shown to have hemostatic efficacy comparable to that of bovine thrombin. Bovine thrombin carries the risk of formation of cross-reactive antibodies to bovine thrombin, factor V, and other impurities that may be present in these formulations. Immunogenicity data for the currently marketed, highly purified bovine thrombin relative to older formulations of bovine thrombin could not be found. Whether the potential safety advantage justifies the added cost of the human products remains to be established

The FDA extended warning for intravenous haloperidol and torsades de pointes: how should institutions respond?

In September 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strengthened label warnings for intravenous (IV) haloperidol regarding QT prolongation (QTP) and torsades de pointes (TdP) in response to adverse event reports. Considering the widespread use of IV haloperidol in the management of acute delirium, the specific FDA recommendation of continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring in this setting has been associated with some controversy. We reviewed the evidence for the FDA warning and provide a potential medical center response to this warning.; Cases of intravenous haloperidol-related QTP/TdP were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases (January 1823 to April 2009) and all FDA MedWatch reports of haloperidol-associated adverse events (November 1997 to April 2008).; A total of 70 of IV haloperidol-associated QTP and/or TdP were identified. There were 54 reports of TdP; 42 of these events were reportedly preceded by QTP. When post-event QTc data were reported, QTc was prolonged 2 mg can safely be administered without ongoing electrocardiographic monitoring in patients without concomitant risk factors

Torsadogenic risk of antipsychotics : combining adverse event reports with drug utilization data across Europe

Antipsychotics (APs) have been associated with risk of torsade de Pointes (TdP). This has important public health implications. Therefore, (a) we exploited the public FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to characterize their torsadogenic profile; (b) we collected drug utilization data from 12 European Countries to assess the population exposure over the 2005-2010 period. FAERS data (2004-2010) were analyzed based on the following criteria: (1) ≥ 4 cases of TdP/QT abnormalities; (2) Significant Reporting Odds Ratio, ROR [Lower Limit of the 95% confidence interval>1], for TdP/QT abnormalities, adjusted and stratified (Arizona CERT drugs as effect modifiers); (3) ≥ 4 cases of ventricular arrhythmia/sudden cardiac death (VA/SCD); (4) Significant ROR for VA/SCD; (5) Significant ROR, combined by aggregating TdP/QT abnormalities with VA and SCD. Torsadogenic signals were characterized in terms of signal strength: from Group A (very strong torsadogenic signal: all criteria fulfilled) to group E (unclear/uncertain signal: only 2/5 criteria). Consumption data were retrieved from 12 European Countries and expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID). Thirty-five antipsychotics met at least one criterium: 9 agents were classified in Group A (amisulpride, chlorpromazine, clozapine, cyamemazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone). In 2010, the overall exposure to antipsychotics varied from 5.94 DID (Estonia) to 13.99 (France, 2009). Considerable increment of Group A agents was found in several Countries (+3.47 in France): the exposure to olanzapine increased across all Countries (+1.84 in France) and peaked 2.96 in Norway; cyamemazine was typically used only in France (2.81 in 2009). Among Group B drugs, levomepromazine peaked 3.78 (Serbia); fluphenazine 1.61 (Slovenia). This parallel approach through spontaneous reporting and drug utilization analyses highlighted drug- and Country-specific scenarios requiring potential regulatory consideration: levomepromazine (Serbia), fluphenazine (Slovenia), olanzapine (across Europe), cyamemazine (France). This synergy should be encouraged to support future pharmacovigilance activities

Systematic review of medication safety assessment methods

The accuracy, efficiency, and efficacy of four commonly recommended medication safety assessment methodologies were systematically reviewed.; Medical literature databases were systematically searched for any comparative study conducted between January 2000 and October 2009 in which at least two of the four methodologies-incident report review, direct observation, chart review, and trigger tool-were compared with one another. Any study that compared two or more methodologies for quantitative accuracy (adequacy of the assessment of medication errors and adverse drug events) efficiency (effort and cost), and efficacy and that provided numerical data was included in the analysis.; Twenty-eight studies were included in this review. Of these, 22 compared two of the methodologies, and 6 compared three methods. Direct observation identified the greatest number of reports of drug-related problems (DRPs), while incident report review identified the fewest. However, incident report review generally showed a higher specificity compared to the other methods and most effectively captured severe DRPs. In contrast, the sensitivity of incident report review was lower when compared with trigger tool. While trigger tool was the least labor-intensive of the four methodologies, incident report review appeared to be the least expensive, but only when linked with concomitant automated reporting systems and targeted follow-up.; All four medication safety assessment techniques-incident report review, chart review, direct observation, and trigger tool-have different strengths and weaknesses. Overlap between different methods in identifying DRPs is minimal. While trigger tool appeared to be the most effective and labor-efficient method, incident report review best identified high-severity DRPs

Self-Reported Medication Use among Pregnant and Postpartum Women during the Third Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Multinational Cross-Sectional Study.

Information on medication utilization among pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic is lacking. We described the prevalence and patterns of self-reported medication use among pregnant and postpartum women during the third wave of the pandemic (June-August 2021). An online questionnaire was distributed in five European countries between June-August 2021. Pregnant women or women who had delivered in the three preceding months, and ≥18 years old, could participate. The prevalence of overall medication use, self-medication, and changes in chronic medication use were determined. A total of 2158 women out of 5210 participants (41.4%) used at least one medication. Analgesics (paracetamol), systemic antihistamines (cetirizine), and drugs for gastric disorders (omeprazole) were the three most used classes. Anti-infectives were less prevalent than during pre-pandemic times. Antidepressants and anxiety related medication use remained similar, despite a higher prevalence of these symptoms. Self-medication was reported in 19.4% of women, and 4.1% of chronic medication users reported that they changed a chronic medication on personal initiative due to the pandemic. In conclusion, medication use patterns in our cohort were mostly similar to those of the first COVID-19 wave and the pre-pandemic period. More studies are needed to explore factors associated with self-medication and changes in chronic medication use due to the pandemic in this perinatal population