3.9 Article

Drug Handling in a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit - Can Errors be Prevented by a Three-Step Intervention?

期刊

KLINISCHE PADIATRIE
卷 226, 期 2, 页码 62-67

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1364030

关键词

intervention study; drug administration; medication error; paediatric intensive care unit; healthcare quality assurance; Interventionsstudie; padiatrische Intensivstation; Arzneimittelanwendung; Qualitatssicherung; Medikationsfehler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Drug handling in paediatric intensive care units (PICU) is prone to medication errors. We aimed to identify type and prevalence of those errors and to assess preventative interventions. Methods: Prospective intervention study investigating a 3-step intervention for preventing errors in drug handling in a 10-bed PICU of a university hospital. Nurses' drug handling was mon-itored in daily routine to identify the number of patients affected by errors and overall prevalence and types of errors in drug handling. We implemented a comprehensive intervention consisting of an information handout, a training course, and a 76-page reference book tailored to reduce the prevalence. Results: The prevalence of errors in drug han-dling decreased from 83% (555 errors/668 pro-cesses) to 63% (554/883; p < 0.001) after the intervention. The number of affected patients remained unchanged (95% vs. 89%, p=0.370). Peroral (PO) drugs (1.33 errors/process) were more error-prone than intravenous (IV) drugs (0.64), despite being used less frequently (27% vs. 73% of all processes, p < 0.001). The interventions decreased the prevalence to 0.77 errors/process (p < 0.001) in PO and to 0.52 in IV drugs (p=0.025). Conclusion: Errors in drug handling were alarmingly frequent. PO drugs were frequently subject to errors, even though being used less frequently. The implementation of a comprehensive intervention succeeded in reducing the prevalence of errors. Yet further refinements are necessary to decrease also the number of affected patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据