Developing a process to measure actual harm from medication errors in paediatric inpatients: From design to implementation

Author:

Mumford Virginia1ORCID,Raban Magdalena Z.1ORCID,Li Ling1ORCID,Fitzpatrick Erin1,Woods Amanda1ORCID,Merchant Alison1ORCID,Badgery‐Parker Tim1ORCID,Gates Peter2ORCID,Baysari Melissa3ORCID,Day Ric O.2ORCID,Ambler Geoffrey4ORCID,Dalla‐Pozza Luciano4ORCID,Gazarian Madlen2ORCID,Gardo Alan4ORCID,Barclay Peter4ORCID,White Les2ORCID,Westbrook Johanna I.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Australian Institute of Health Innovation Macquarie University Sydney New South Wales Australia

2. Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia

3. Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Charles Perkins Centre The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

4. The Children's Hospital at Westmead Sydney Children's Hospital Network Sydney New South Wales Australia

Abstract

AimsThe potential harm associated with medication errors is widely reported, but data on actual harm are limited. When actual harm has been measured, assessment processes are often poorly described, limiting their ability to be reproduced by other studies. Our aim was to design and implement a new process to assess actual harm resulting from medication errors in paediatric inpatient care.MethodsPrescribing errors were identified through retrospective medical record reviews (n = 26 369 orders) and medication administration errors through direct observation (n = 5137 administrations) in a tertiary paediatric hospital. All errors were assigned potential harm severity ratings on a 5‐point scale. Multidisciplinary panels reviewed case studies for patients assigned the highest three potential severity ratings and determined the following: actual harm occurrence and severity level, plausibility of a link between the error(s) and identified harm(s) and a confidence rating if no harm had occurred.ResultsMultidisciplinary harm panels (n = 28) reviewed 566 case studies (173 prescribing related and 393 administration related) and found evidence of actual harm in 89 (prescribing = 22, administration = 67). Eight cases of serious harm cases were found (prescribing = 1, administration = 7) and no cases of severe harm. The panels were very confident in 65% of cases (n = 302) where no harm was found. Potential and actual harm ratings varied.ConclusionsThis harm assessment process provides a systematic method for determining actual harm from medication errors. The multidisciplinary nature of the panels was critical in evaluating specific clinical, therapeutic and contextual considerations including care delivery pathways, therapeutic dose ranges and drug–drug and drug–disease interactions.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3