4.7 Article

Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients

期刊

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 285, 期 16, 页码 2114-2120

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2114

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [T32 HS00063] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context latrogenic injuries, including medication errors, are an important problem in all hospitalized populations. However, few epidemiological data are available regarding medication errors in the pediatric inpatient setting. Objectives To assess the rates of medication errors, adverse drug events (ADEs), and potential ADEs; to compare pediatric rates with previously reported adult rates; to analyze the major types of errors; and to evaluate the potential impact of prevention strategies. Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective cohort study of 1120 patients admitted to 2 academic institutions during 6 weeks in April and May of 1999. Main Outcome Measures Medication errors, potential ADEs, and ADEs were identified by clinical staff reports and review of medication order sheets, medication administration records, and patient charts. Results We reviewed 10778 medication orders and found 616 medication errors (5.7%), 115 potential ADEs (1.1%), and 26 ADEs (0.24%). Of the 26 ADEs, 5 (19%) were preventable. While the preventable ADE rate was similar to that of a previous adult hospital study, the potential ADE rate was 3 times higher. The rate of potential ADEs was significantly higher in neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit. Most potential ADEs occurred at the stage of drug ordering (79%) and involved incorrect dosing (34%), anti-infective drugs (28%), and intravenous medications (54%), Physician reviewers judged that computerized physician order entry could potentially have prevented 93% and ward-based clinical pharmacists 94% of potential ADEs. Conclusions Medication errors are common in pediatric inpatient settings, and further efforts are needed to reduce them.

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

4.7
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