Factors influencing in-hospital prescribing errors: A systematic review

Aim: In-hospital prescribing errors (PEs) may result in patient harm, prolonged hospitalization and hospital (re)admission. These events are associated with pressure on healthcare services and significant healthcare costs. To develop targeted interventions to prevent or reduce in-hospital PEs, identification and understanding of facilitating and protective factors influencing in-hospital PEs in current daily practice is necessary, adopting a Safety-II perspective. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of all factors reported in the literature, both protective and facilitating, as influencing in-hospital PEs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library (via Wiley) were searched, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, for studies that identified factors influencing in-hospital PEs. Both qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. Results: Overall, 19 articles (6 qualitative and 13 quantitative studies) were included and 40 unique factors influencing in-hospital PEs were identified. These factors were categorized into five domains according to the Eindhoven classification (‘organization-related’, ‘prescriber-related’, ‘prescription-related’, ‘technology-related’ and ‘unclassified’) and visualized in an Ishikawa (Fishbone) diagram. Most of the identified factors (87.5%; n = 40) facilitated in-hospital PEs. The most frequently identified facilitating factor (39.6%; n = 19) was ‘insufficient (drug) knowledge, prescribing skills and/or experience of prescribers’. Conclusion: The findings of this review could be used to identify points of engagement for future intervention studies and help hospitals determine how to optimize prescribing. A multifaceted intervention, targeting multiple factors might help to circumvent the complex challenge of in-hospital PEs

Factors influencing in-hospital prescribing errors: A systematic review

Aim: In-hospital prescribing errors (PEs) may result in patient harm, prolonged hospitalization and hospital (re)admission. These events are associated with pressure on healthcare services and significant healthcare costs. To develop targeted interventions to prevent or reduce in-hospital PEs, identification and understanding of facilitating and protective factors influencing in-hospital PEs in current daily practice is necessary, adopting a Safety-II perspective. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of all factors reported in the literature, both protective and facilitating, as influencing in-hospital PEs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library (via Wiley) were searched, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, for studies that identified factors influencing in-hospital PEs. Both qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. Results: Overall, 19 articles (6 qualitative and 13 quantitative studies) were included and 40 unique factors influencing in-hospital PEs were identified. These factors were categorized into five domains according to the Eindhoven classification (‘organization-related’, ‘prescriber-related’, ‘prescription-related’, ‘technology-related’ and ‘unclassified’) and visualized in an Ishikawa (Fishbone) diagram. Most of the identified factors (87.5%; n = 40) facilitated in-hospital PEs. The most frequently identified facilitating factor (39.6%; n = 19) was ‘insufficient (drug) knowledge, prescribing skills and/or experience of prescribers’. Conclusion: The findings of this review could be used to identify points of engagement for future intervention studies and help hospitals determine how to optimize prescribing. A multifaceted intervention, targeting multiple factors might help to circumvent the complex challenge of in-hospital PEs

Feasibility and Educational Value of a Student-Run Pharmacovigilance Programme: A Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacovigilance, the monitoring of drug safety after marketing approval, highly depends on the adequate reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). To improve pharmacovigilance awareness and future ADR reporting among medical students, we developed and evaluated a student-run pharmacovigilance programme. METHODS: In this project, teams of medical students (first- to fifth-year) assessed real ADR reports, as submitted to the national pharmacovigilance centre. After assessment of causality, including identification of a potential pharmacological explanation for the ADR, the students wrote a personalized feedback letter to the reporter, as well as a summary for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and World Health Organization (WHO) pharmacovigilance databases. This student assessment was then verified and evaluated by staff from The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb), using an e-questionnaire. Student attitudes, intentions, skills, and knowledge of ADR reporting were evaluated using the e-questionnaire, before and after participation in the programme. RESULTS: From May 2014 to January 2015, a total of 43 students assessed 100 different ADR reports selected by Lareb staff (n = 3). Student assessments were rated as useful (93%), scientifically substantiated (90%), accurate (92%), and complete (92%), and, on average, did not cost Lareb staff extra time. Medical students were positive about ADR reporting, and their awareness of ADR reporting increased significantly following participation in the programme (p < 0.05). After participation in the programme, the students intended to report serious ADRs in their future practice, and their knowledge of pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting showed they had a high overall level of pharmacological understanding. CONCLUSION: The student-run pharmacovigilance programme is a win-win venture. It offers students a valuable 'pharmacovigilance experience', creates awareness in future doctors, and has the potential to increase pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge

An inter-professional student-run medication review programme. Reducing adverse drug reactions in a memory outpatient clinic: a controlled clinical trial: a controlled clinical trial

Background: We investigated if the addition of an inter-professional student-led medication review team (ISP-team) to standard care can increase the number of detected ADRs and reduce the number of ADRs 3 months after an outpatient visit. Research design and methods: In this controlled clinical trial, patients were allocated to standard care (control group) or standard care plus the ISP team (intervention group). The ISP team consisted of medical and pharmacy students and student nurse practitioners. The team performed a structured medication review and adjusted medication to reduce the number of ADRs. Three months after the outpatient visit, a clinical pharmacologist who was blinded for allocation performed a follow-up telephone interview to determine whether patients experienced ADRs. Results: During the outpatient clinic visit, significantly more (p < 0.001) ADRs were detected in the intervention group (n = 48) than in the control group (n = 10). In both groups, 60–63% of all detected ADRs were managed. Three months after the outpatient visit, significantly fewer (predominantly mild and moderately severe) ADRs related to benzodiazepine derivatives and antihypertensive causing dizziness were detected in the patients of the intervention group. Conclusions: An ISP team in addition to standard care increases the detection and management of ADRs in elderly patients resulting in fewer mild and moderately severe ADRs

The clinical and educational outcomes of an inter-professional student-led medication review team, a pilot study

Aims: The involvement of an inter-professional healthcare student team in the review of medications used by geriatric patients could not only provide patients with optimized therapy but also provide students with a valuable inter-professional learning experience. We describe and evaluate the clinical and learning outcomes of an inter-professional student-run mediation review program (ISP). Subject and method: A variable team consisting of students in medicine, pharmacy, master advanced nursing practice, and master physician assistant reviewed the medication lists of patients attending a specialized geriatric outpatient clinic. Results: During 32 outpatient visits, 188 medications were reviewed. The students identified 14 medication-related problems, of which 4 were not recognized by healthcare professionals. The ISP team advised 95 medication changes, of which 68 (71.6%) were directly implemented. Students evaluated this pilot program positively and considered it educational (median score 4 out of 5) and thought it would contribute to their future inter-professional relationships. Conclusion: An inter-professional team of healthcare students is an innovative healthcare improvement for (academic) hospitals to increase medication safety. Most formulated advices were directly incorporated in daily practice and could prevent future medication-related harm. The ISP also offers students a first opportunity to work in an inter-professional manner and get insight into the perspectives and qualities of their future colleagues

An inter-professional student-run medication review program: The clinical STOPP/START-based outcomes of a controlled clinical trial in a geriatric outpatient clinic

As the population ages, more people will have comorbid disorders and polypharmacy. Medication should be reviewed regularly in order to avoid adverse drug reactions and medication-related hospital visits, but this is often not done. As part of our student-run clinic project, we investigated whether an interprofessional student-run medication review program (ISP) added to standard care at a geriatric outpatient clinic leads to better prescribing. In this controlled clinical trial, patients visiting a memory outpatient clinic were allocated to standard care (control group) or standard care plus the ISP team (intervention group). The medications of all patients were reviewed by a review panel (“gold standard”), resident, and in the intervention arm also by an ISP team consisting of a group of students from the medicine and pharmacy faculties and students from the higher education school of nursing for advanced nursing practice. For both groups, the number of STOPP/START-based medication changes mentioned in general practitioner (GP) correspondence and the implementation of these changes about 6 weeks after the outpatient visit were investigated. The data of 216 patients were analyzed (control group = 100, intervention group = 116). More recommendations for STOPP/START-based medication changes were made in the GP correspondence in the intervention group than in the control group (43% vs. 24%, P = < 0.001). After 6 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of these changes were implemented in the intervention group (19% vs. 9%, P = 0.001). The ISP team, in addition to standard care, is an effective intervention for optimizing pharmacotherapy and medication safety in a geriatric outpatient clinic