3.8 Article

Observational study of potential risk factors of medication administration errors

期刊

PHARMACY WORLD & SCIENCE
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 264-268

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:PHAR.0000006519.44483.a0

关键词

administration; France; iatrogenic disease; medication error; observation; pharmacy; prevention; risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Medication administration errors (MAEs) are the second most frequent type of medication errors, as has been shown in different studies in the literature. The aims of this observational study were to assess the rate and the potential clinical significance of MAEs and to determine the associated risk factors. Design: In two departments, Geriatric Unit (GU) and Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgery Unit (CTSU) of Besancon University Hospital (France), MAEs were identified using the undisguised observation technique and classified according to the definitions of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Injectable administration, lack of nurses's standardized protocol for the preparation and administration of drugs, incomplete or illegible prescription and nurse's workload were analysed as potential risk factors of MAEs in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: During a period of 20 days, opportunities for error concerning 56 patients and 78 MAEs (58 in CTSU and 26 in GU) were observed. The medication administration error rate was 14.9%. Dose errors were the most frequent (41%) errors, followed by wrong time (26%) and wrong rate errors (19%). No potential fatal errors were observed, 8 (10%) were estimated as potentially life-threatening, 20 (26%) potentially significant and 50 (64%) potentially minor. Nurse workload and incomplete or illegible prescriptions were two independent risk factors of MAEs. Conclusion: According to these data, the quality of the medication administration process needs to be optimized in hospitals in order to minimize the incidence of iatrogenic preventable diseases.

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

3.8
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