4.1 Article

Tenfold therapeutic dosing errors in young children reported to US poison control centers

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY
卷 66, 期 14, 页码 1292-1296

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.2146/080377

关键词

Data collection; Dosage; Errors, medication; Gastrointestinal drugs; Metoclopramide; Pediatrics; Poison control centers; Poisoning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Tenfold dosing medication errors reported to U.S. poison control centers in children younger than six years of age were evaluated. Methods. A retrospective review of all exposures in children younger than six years of age reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers' data collection system during 2000-04 was conducted. Cases were selected for inclusion if the exposure was an unintentional therapeutic error and if 10-fold dosing error was coded as one of the therapeutic-error scenarios. The specific substance or drug category, patient age and sex, site of exposure, clinical effects, disposition, and outcome were evaluated Results. A total of 3894 10-fold dosing errors involving a single substance in children younger than six years of age were reported over a five-year period. The site of exposure was most commonly a residence (n = 3609, 92.7%), followed by a health care facility (n = 223, 5.7%) and a school (n = 32, 0.8%). More than half of the exposures occurred in children 12 months of age or younger. When stratified by age, histamine H-2-receptor antagonists and metoclopramide were the most common medications involved in exposures in children 12 months of age and younger. Cough and cold preparations and antibiotics were the most commonly involved medications in therapeutic errors in children over age 12 months. Conclusion. The most common substances involved in 10-fold medication errors reported to U.S. poison control centers were histamine H-2-receptor antagonists and metoclopramide. Most exposures occurred in the home and involved children 12 months of age or younger.

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

4.1
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