RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prescribing errors put an enormous burden on health and the economy, claiming implementation of effective methods to prevent/reduce them. Polypharmacy regimens (five or more drugs) are highly prone to unacknowledged prescribing errors, since the complex network of drug-drug interactions, guidelines and contraindications is challenging to be adequately evaluated in the prescription phase, especially if different doctors are involved. Clinical decision support systems aimed at polypharmacy evaluation may be crucial to recognize and correct prescribing errors. METHODS: A commercial clinical decision support system (Drug-PIN®) was applied to estimate the frequency of unrecognized prescribing errors in a group of 307 consecutive patients accessing the hospital pre-admission service of the Sant'Andrea Hospital of Rome, Italy, in the period April-June 2023. Drug-PIN® is a two-step system, first scoring the risk (low, moderate or high) associated with a certain therapy-patient pair, then allowing therapy optimization by medications exchanges. We defined prescribing errors as cases where therapy optimization could achieve consistent reduction of the Drug-PIN® calculated risk. RESULTS: Polypharmacy was present in 205 patients, and moderate to high risk for medication harm was predicted by Drug-PIN® in 91 patients (29.6%). In 58 of them (63.7%), Drug-PIN® guided optimization of the therapy could be achieved, with a statistically significant reduction of the calculated therapy-associated risk score. Patients whose therapy cannot be improved have a statistically significant higher number of used drugs. Considering the overall study population, the rate of avoidable prescribing errors was 18.89%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that computer-aided evaluation of medication-associated harm could be a valuable and actionable tool to identify and prevent prescribing errors in polypharmacy. We conducted the study in a Hospital pre-admission setting, which is not representative of the general population but represents a hotspot to intercept fragile population, where a consistent fraction of potentially harmful polypharmacy regimens could be promptly identified and corrected by systematic use of adequate clinical decision support tools.

RESUMEN

AIMS: This randomized controlled pilot study aimed to assess the differences in the frequency, type and severity of prescribing errors made by medical students when assessed in an electronic (e-)prescribing system compared to a traditional prescribing method (e.g., typing out a prescription). METHODS: Fourth year medical students in the period of 1 November to 31 July 2023, were asked to participate in this single-centre prospective, randomized, controlled intervention study. Participants performed a prescribing assessment in either an e-prescribing system (intervention group) or in a more traditional prescribing platform (control group). The prescriptions were checked for errors, graded and categorized. Differences in prescribing errors, error categories and severity were analysed. RESULTS: Out of 334 students, 84 participated in the study. Nearly all participants (98.8%) made 1 or more prescribing errors, primarily involving inadequate information errors. In the intervention group, more participants made prescribing errors involving the prescribed amount (71.4 vs. 19.0%; P < .01), but fewer involving administrative errors (2.4 vs. 19.0%; P = .03). Prescribing-method-specific errors were identified in 4.8 and 40.5% of the intervention and control group, respectively, with significant differences in overlapping errors as well. CONCLUSION: This pilot study shows the importance of training e-prescribing competencies in medical curricula, in addition to traditional prescribing methods. It identifies prescribing-method-specific prescribing errors and emphasizes the need for further research to define e-prescribing competencies. Additionally, the need for an accessible real-life-like e-prescribing environment tailored to educators and students is essential for effective learning and incorporation of e-prescribing into medical curricula.

RESUMEN

After a chemotherapy overdose in 1994 resulted in the death of one patient and the permanent injury of another, the role of the verification nurse was created at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer c.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Errors in antiretroviral therapy (ART) use are common in children living with HIV (CLHIV), but there is limited evidence from rural primary healthcare (PHC) facilities where trained professional nurses initiate and manage most CLHIV. Objectives: To assess antiretroviral prescribing practices of trained professional nurses in Mopani District's rural facilities and compare them to the 2015 national consolidated guidelines to evaluate the appropriateness of ART use. Method: A four-year (2015-2018) retrospective cross-sectional medical record review was conducted of CLHIV in 94 rural PHC facilities of Mopani District. Inclusion criteria were: age under 15 years, initiated on ART by nurses in 2015 and virally unsuppressed (viral load ≥ 400 copies/mL) by the end of December 2018. Results: A total of 16 669 antiretrovirals were prescribed from 7035 clinic visits. A correct ART regimen and dosage form was prescribed in 7045 (96%) and 15 502 (93%) of the cases. However, errors were common: 2928 (23%) incorrect doses, 15 502 (93%) incorrect dosing frequencies, and 4122 (61%) incorrectly dispensed antiretrovirals, and 3636 (28%) incorrect dosing frequencies. Conclusion: Antiretroviral prescribing errors in the form of drug omissions in ART regimens, incorrect dosing and dosing frequencies, lack of formulation considerations, and inadequate monthly supplies of antiretrovirals were commonly observed in this review. Antiretroviral stewardship programmes should be considered to develop and establish a fundamental strategy for improving quality in managing CLHIV.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy is an essential part of patient care. In order to achieve optimal health outcomes, safe and effective prescribing and administering of medications is crucial, especially since the process of pharmacotherapy can cause serious problems, mainly adverse events and/or interactions, that often pass undetected. OBJECTIVE(S): To investigate the feasibility of using community pharmacies as checkpoints to detect errors and failures in prescribing, as well as patients' compliance with pharmacotherapy. To this end, analysis and recording of the prescribing process was carried out and error-prone points were identified. METHODS: Patients and caregivers filling prescriptions during the first 4 weeks of November 2017 and February 2018 answered questions in order to evaluate their attendance of regular checkups and their compliance with prescribing instructions. All prescriptions filled at the pharmacy were examined for detection of prescription errors and drug-drug interactions. Statistical analyses, including calculations of the correlation coefficient phi (φ), chi-square, and confidence intervals, were carried out. Detected errors and failures were evaluated by application of the Health Failure Mode Effect Analysis (HFMEA) quality tool. RESULTS: A significant number of patients (16.7%) failed to regularly attend checkups regarding known health problems (95% CI: 10.6-22.7%), a corresponding percentage (16%, 95% CI: 10.1-21.9%) did not comply with prescribed pharmacotherapy, and a significant proportion of patients self-medicated regularly (32%, 95% CI: 24.5-39.5%). A total of 8.6% of prescriptions included medication combinations with a potential for severe drug-drug interactions (95% CI: 7.1-10.2%) while 58.7% of the prescriptions included combinations that could lead to moderate ones (95% CI: 56.1-61.4). The HFMEA indicated that all problems recorded required immediate interventions, except for prescribing errors. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies can be potential checkpoints for the detection and evaluation of prescribing errors and pharmacotherapy failures.

RESUMEN

Prescribing errors represent a safety risk for hospitalized patients, especially in pediatrics. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) might reduce prescribing errors, although its effect has not yet been thoroughly studied on pediatric general wards. This study investigated the impact of a CPOE on prescribing errors in children on general wards at the University Children's Hospital Zurich. We performed medication reviews on a total of 1000 patients before and after the implementation of a CPOE. The CPOE included limited clinical decision support (CDS) such as drug-drug interaction check and checks for duplicates. Prescribing errors, their type according to the PCNE classification, their severity (adapted NCC MERP index), as well as the interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa), were analyzed. Potentially harmful errors were significantly reduced from 18 errors/100 prescriptions (95% CI: 17-20) to 11 errors/100 prescriptions (95% CI: 9-12) after CPOE implementation. A large number of errors with low potential for harm (e.g., "missing information") was reduced after the introduction of the CPOE, and consequently, the overall severity of potential harm increased post-CPOE. Despite general error rate reduction, medication reconciliation problems (PCNE error 8), such as drugs prescribed on paper as well as electronically, significantly increased after the introduction of the CPOE. The most common pediatric prescribing errors, the dosing errors (PCNE errors 3), were not altered on a statistically significant level after the introduction of the CPOE. Interrater reliability showed moderate agreement (Κ = 0.48).  Conclusion: Patient safety increased by reducing the rate of prescribing errors after CPOE implementation. The reason for the observed increase in medication reconciliation problems might be the hybrid system with remaining paper prescriptions for special medication. The lacking effect on dosing errors could be explained by the fact that a web application CDS covering dosing recommendations (PEDeDose) was already in use before the implementation of the CPOE. Further investigations should focus on eliminating hybrid systems, interventions to increase the usability of the CPOE, and full integration of CDS tools such as automated dose checks into the CPOE. What is Known: • Prescribing errors, especially dosing errors, are a common safety threat for pediatric inpatients. •The introduction of a CPOE may reduce prescribing errors, though pediatric general wards are poorly studied. What is New: •To our knowledge, this is the first study on prescribing errors in pediatric general wards in Switzerland investigating the impact of a CPOE. •We found that the overall error rate was significantly reduced after the implementation of the CPOE. The severity of potential harm was higher in the post-CPOE period, which implies that low-severity errors were substantially reduced after CPOE implementation. Dosing errors were not reduced, but missing information errors and drug selection errors were reduced. On the other hand, medication reconciliation problems increased.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: California Senate Bill (SB) 1254 (effective January 1, 2019) requires pharmacy staff at acute hospitals with more than 100 beds to obtain a medication profile for high-risk patients upon hospital admission. This multicenter study sought to evaluate the statewide impact of California SB 1254 by capturing the errors intercepted and harm prevented as a result of the passage of the bill. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted at 11 hospitals in California for 6 consecutive weeks between January 2020 and March 2020. Participating sites captured medication history errors identified among high-risk patients using organization-specific criteria. Errors were categorized by type and ranked for severity of potential or actual harm based on the modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) categories. RESULTS: Study sites had an average daily census of 180 to 800 patients. Approximately 94% (n = 2,554) of medication histories conducted disclosed at least 1 error. Approximately 54% (n = 1,474) of histories disclosed at least 1 serious or potentially life-threatening error. Approximately 6 errors were identified and prevented per patient (95% CI, 5.62-6.01 errors per patient), and 1 in 4 errors (25%) was categorized as potentially serious or life-threatening. CONCLUSION: Among high-risk patients, pharmacy-led medication histories significantly reduced medication errors. If not intercepted, these errors would have likely resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Future research should evaluate opportunities to standardize high-risk criteria to support patient prioritization and allocation of resources.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: In-hospital prescribing errors (PEs) may result in patient harm, prolonged hospitalization and hospital (re)admission. These events are associated with pressure on healthcare services and significant healthcare costs. To develop targeted interventions to prevent or reduce in-hospital PEs, identification and understanding of facilitating and protective factors influencing in-hospital PEs in current daily practice is necessary, adopting a Safety-II perspective. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of all factors reported in the literature, both protective and facilitating, as influencing in-hospital PEs. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Cochrane Library (via Wiley) were searched, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, for studies that identified factors influencing in-hospital PEs. Both qualitative and quantitative study designs were included. RESULTS: Overall, 19 articles (6 qualitative and 13 quantitative studies) were included and 40 unique factors influencing in-hospital PEs were identified. These factors were categorized into five domains according to the Eindhoven classification ('organization-related', 'prescriber-related', 'prescription-related', 'technology-related' and 'unclassified') and visualized in an Ishikawa (Fishbone) diagram. Most of the identified factors (87.5%; n = 40) facilitated in-hospital PEs. The most frequently identified facilitating factor (39.6%; n = 19) was 'insufficient (drug) knowledge, prescribing skills and/or experience of prescribers'. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review could be used to identify points of engagement for future intervention studies and help hospitals determine how to optimize prescribing. A multifaceted intervention, targeting multiple factors might help to circumvent the complex challenge of in-hospital PEs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Medication errors have serious consequences for patients' morbidity and mortality. The involvement of pharmacy professionals in the prescribing and dispensing procedure allowed the detection of a range of drug-related problems in addition to identification by prescribers. They are often the first point of contact in the healthcare system in identifying prescribing errors and intervening in these errors by dealing with the prescribers and the patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess prescribing errors reported by community pharmacy professionals in Gondar Town, North West Ethiopia. METHODS: A self-administered cross-sectional survey was employed from February 29 to June 23, 2020, to collect data on prescribing errors reported by community pharmacy professionals. All community pharmacy professionals found in Gondar town were included. Community pharmacy professionals who were ill at the time of study and who had less than 6 months of work experience were excluded. RESULTS: Seventy-four pharmacy professionals participated in the study with a response rate of 93.6%. The overall prevalence of prescribing errors was 75.1% (95% CI 71.08-78.70). Of these errors, drug selection was the most common (82.4%), followed by errors of commission (79.7%) and errors of omission (78.4%). Antibiotics (63.5%) were commonly involved in prescribing errors, followed by analgesics (44.5%) and antipsychotics (39.5%). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study revealed a high prevalence of prescribing errors in Gondar, Ethiopia. Drug selection was the most prescribed error, followed by errors of commission. Stakeholders should design interventions such as training, integrating prescribers with clinical pharmacists and supervising interns by seniors. Large-scale studies that include potential factors of prescribing problems are recommended for future researchers.

RESUMEN

Background: Because COVID-19 patients are vulnerable to prescribing errors (PEs) and adverse drug events, designing and implementing a new approach to prevent prescribing errors (PEs) involving COVID-19 patients has become a priority in pharmacotherapy research. Objectives: To investigate whether using WhatsApp to deliver prescribing error (PE)-related clinical scenarios to community pharmacists could enhance their ability to detect PEs and conduct successful pharmaceutical interventions (PIs). Methods: In this study, 110 community pharmacies were recruited from different regions across Jordan and equally allocated to 2 groups. Over the course of 4 weeks, WhatsApp was used to send PEs-related clinical case scenarios to the active group. The second group was controlled with no clinical scenarios. After completion of the 4-week phase, pharmacists from both groups were asked to document PEs in COVID-19 patients and their interventions using a data-collection form. Results: The incidence of PEs in COVID-19 patients documented in the active group (18.54%) was higher than that reported in the control group (3.09%) (P = .001). Of the 6598 and 968 PIs conducted by participants working in the active and control group pharmacies, 6013 (91.13%) and 651 (67.25%) were accepted, respectively. The proportions of wrong drug (contraindication), wrong drug (unnecessary drug prescribed/no proof of its benefits), and omission of a drug between the active and control groups were 15.30% versus 7.21% (P = .001), 11.85% versus 6.29% (P = .03), and 17.78% versus 10.50% (0.01), respectively. Additionally, the proportions of lethal, serious, and significant errors were 0.74% versus 0.35% (P = .04), 10.52% versus 2.57% (0.002), and 47.88% versus 9.57% (0.001), respectively. Addition of drug therapy interventions (AOR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84) and errors with significant clinical seriousness (AOR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64). Conclusions PEs involving COVID-19 patients in community settings are common and clinically significant. The intervention assessed in this study could be promising for designing a feasible and time-efficient interventional tool to encourage pharmacists' involvement in identifying and correcting PEs in light of COVID-19.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Computerised Physician Order Entry (CPOE) software is increasingly used across the world to improve medication safety. However, few high-quality studies have reviewed the impact of CPOE on prescribing errors and patient harm. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a hybrid CPOE-paper prescribing system on prescribing errors at a secondary hospital site. DESIGN: An interrupted time-series study was conducted by identifying prescribing errors via prospective medical chart review before and after the implementation of CPOE across three medical wards. PARTICIPANTS: The medication orders of all patients admitted to the medical wards during the study period were reviewed. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a CPOE across three medical wards. MEASURES: A blinded expert panel risk stratified the errors according to level of severity, preventability and potential for harm. Pearson's chi square and segmented regressions were used to determine if there were differences in prescribing errors pre- and post-CPOE implementation. KEY RESULTS: A total of 10,535 medication orders were reviewed pre-CPOE and 13,841 medication orders reviewed post-CPOE. Analysis demonstrated that after implementation of CPOE there were reductions in the proportion of orders with one or more of any error (-30.1%, 95 %CI: -36.5%, -23.7%, p < 0.001). Reductions in the proportion of orders with one or more errors were seen across the error categories of dosing errors (-20.1%, 95 %CI: -25.1%, -15%, p < 0.001), procedural/administrative errors (-18.9%, 95 %CI: -22.8%, -15%, p < 0.001), and therapeutic errors (-2.6%, 95 %CI: -4.1%, -1%, p = 0.002). Post-CPOE there were reductions in the proportion of orders with at least one non-intercepted serious error (-12.6%, 95 %CI: -16.4%, -8.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of CPOE was associated with reductions in prescribing errors. There is also evidence that this translated into a reduced risk of harm to patients post-CPOE implementation through the reduction in actual adverse drug events.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Clinical pharmacists have a vital role during COVID-19 pandemic in mitigating medication errors, particularly prescribing errors in hospitals. That is owing to the fact that prescribing errors during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the clinical pharmacist on the rate of prescribing errors on COVID-19 patients in a governmental hospital. Methods: The study was a pre-post study conducted from March 2020 till September 2020. It included the pre-education phase P0; a retrospective phase where all the prescriptions for COVID-19 patients were revised by the clinical pharmacy team and prescription errors were extracted. Followed by a one-month period; the clinical pharmacy team prepared educational materials in the form of posters and flyers covering all prescribing errors detected to be delivered to physicians. Then, the post-education phase P1; all prescriptions were monitored by the clinical pharmacy team to assess the rate and types of prescribing errors and the data extracted was compared to that from pre-education phase. Results: The number of prescribing errors in P0 phase was 1054 while it was only 148 in P1 Phase. The clinical pharmacy team implemented education phase helped to significantly reduce the prescribing errors from 14.7/1000 patient-days in the P0 phase to 2.56/1000 patient-days in the P1 phase (p-value <0.001). Conclusion: The clinical pharmacist significantly reduced the rate of prescribing errors in patients with COVID-19 which emphasizes the great role of clinical pharmacists' interventions in the optimization of prescribing in these stressful conditions.

RESUMEN

Closed-loop electronic medication management systems (EMMS) have been seen as a potential technology to prevent medication errors (MEs), although the research on them is still limited. The aim of this paper was to describe the changes in reported MEs in Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) during and after implementing an EPIC-based electronic health record system (APOTTI), with the first features of a closed-loop EMMS. MEs reported from January 2018 to May 2021 were analysed to identify changes in ME trends with quantitative analysis. Severe MEs were also analysed via qualitative content analysis. A total of 30% (n = 23,492/79,272) of all reported patient safety incidents were MEs. Implementation phases momentarily increased the ME reporting, which soon decreased back to the earlier level. Administration and dispensing errors decreased, but medication reconciliation, ordering, and prescribing errors increased. The ranking of the TOP 10 medications related to MEs remained relatively stable. There were 92 severe MEs related to APOTTI (43% of all severe MEs). The majority of these (55%, n = 53) were related to use and user skills, 24% (n = 23) were technical failures and flaws, and 21% (n = 21) were related to both. Using EMMS required major changes in the medication process and new technical systems and technology. Our medication-use process is approaching a closed-loop system, which seems to provide safer dispensing and administration of medications. However, medication reconciliation, ordering, and prescribing still need to be improved.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes significant mortality and morbidity in hospitalised patients. Risk factors for VTE are well known and there are validated risk assessment tools to support the use of prophylactic therapies. In England, reporting the percentage of patients with a completed VTE risk assessment is mandated, but this does not include whether that risk assessment resulted in appropriate prescribing. Full guideline compliance, defined as an assessment which led to an appropriate action-here prescribing prophylactic low molecular weight heparin where indicated, is rarely reported. Education, audit and feedback enhance guideline compliance but electronic prescribing systems (EPS) can mandate guideline-compliant actions. We hypothesised that a systems-based EPS intervention (prescribing rules which mandate approval or rejection of a proposed prescription of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin based on the mandated VTE assessment) would increase full VTE guideline compliance more than interventions which focused on targeting individual prescribers. METHODS: All admitted patients within University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust were included for analysis between 2011 and 2020. The proportion of patients who received a fully compliant risk assessment and action was assessed over time. Interventions included teaching sessions and face-to-face feedback based on measured performance (an approach targeting individual prescribers) and mandatory risk assessment and prescribing rules into an EPS (a systems approach). RESULTS: Data from all 235,005 admissions and all 5503 prescribers were included in the analysis. Risk assessments were completed in > 90-95% of all patients at all times, but full guideline compliance was lower (70% at the start of this study). Face-to-face feedback improved full VTE guideline compliance from 70 to 77% (p ≤ 0.001). Changes to the EPS to mandate assessment with prescribing rules increased full VTE compliance to 95% (p ≤ 0.001). Further amendments to the EPS system to reduce erroneous VTE assessments slightly reduced full compliance to 92% (p < 0.001), but this was then maintained including during changes to the low molecular weight heparin used for VTE prophylaxis. DISCUSSION: An EPS-systems approach was more effective in improving sustained guideline-compliant VTE prevention over time. Non-compliance remained at 8-5% despite this mandated system. Further research is needed to assess the potential reasons for this.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: Anticoagulants represent a main source of medication errors (MEs) and complications that have catastrophic implications, posing an obligation on health care providers to assess anticoagulant-related MEs and factors affecting their occurrence. This study investigates the occurrence and severity of prescribing MEs in patients on anticoagulants and explores their potential predictors. METHODS: This study was a prospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital on 116 patients with a total of 2166 anticoagulant doses. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of prescribed anticoagulant doses resulted in MEs with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) causing 61% and 34%, respectively, of the total MEs. More than 50% of all MEs were incorrect doses (high and low) shared between heparin and tinzaparin. The highest severity of error was Category D followed by Category F and Category C. A Poisson regression analysis model revealed that female (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.54, P < .001), bridging (IRR 1.52; 95% CI 1.10-2.09; P = .011), venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (IRR 7.65; 95% CI 4.88-12.02; P < .001), physician non-adherence (IRR 2.71; 95% CI 2.22-3.29; P < .001), and polypharmacy (IRR 1.68; 95% CI 1.26-2.23; P = .036) were predictors of the higher incidence of MEs. Ordinal logistic regression analysis demonstrated that physician non-adherence (OR 24.67; 95% CI 5.54-207; P < .001) was the main predictor of increased error severity. CONCLUSION: The major predictor in increasing both the incidence and severity of MEs is physician adherence to evidence-based guidelines (EBG). Strict regulations for anticoagulant prescribing through an anticoagulant stewardship program are a necessity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has necessitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identified as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescribing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post-COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3 months after discharge. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3 months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identified PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identified ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16-17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34-21.5) as independent risk factors for PEs. CONCLUSIONS: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID-19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Computerised prescriptions for Hospital Discharge Orders (HDO) are used world-wide to secure medication processes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate physicians' adoption of computerised provider order-entry (CPOE) for HDO and the prescribing error rate of HDO in an acute medical care unit. SETTING: A prospective study was conducted in an internal medicine department over a six-month period. The use rate of CPOE for HDO edition, prescription lines concordance between CPOE-edited HDO, exit prescriptions transcribed in the discharge summary (DS), and prescribing error rate in CPOE-edited HDO were all evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients with HDO were included in the study. HDO were edited via CPOE system for 350 patients (86%), among which 124 (35%) were identically transcribed, 217 (62%) had discrepancies, and nine (3%) were not transcribed in the discharge summary (DS). Prescription errors were analysed using the total of 2,854 drugs prescribed on HDO. Although hospital pharmacists had signalled discrepancies and provided recommendations to the prescribers via alerting pharmaceutical interventions in CPOE 67 prescription errors (error rate of 2.3%) were found. Errors included 53 cases of refractory period disrespected, four cases of drug interactions, three cases of drug redundancies, and two cases of excessive dosage. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that most HDO were edited via the CPOE system. Together with pharmacist's interventions, the CPOE system contributed to reducing the prescription error rate in HDO. However, discrepancies in the recording process to DS were frequent, calling for reinforcement of error prevention strategies upon the integration of a CPOE system in the hospital's Electronic Health Records. Providing regular training for physicians is also a requirement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prescribing patterns and identify potentially inappropriate prescribing practices among general practitioners in the private primary care sector by analysing a large electronic health insurance claims database. METHODS: Medical claims records from February 2019 to February 2020 were extracted from a health insurance claims database. Data cleaning and data analysis were performed using Python 3.7 with the Pandas, NumPy and Matplotlib libraries. The top five most common diagnoses were identified, and for each diagnosis, the most common medication classes and medications prescribed were quantified. Potentially inappropriate prescribing practices were identified by comparing the medications prescribed with relevant clinical guidelines. KEY FINDINGS: The five most common diagnoses were upper respiratory tract infection (41.5%), diarrhoea (7.7%), musculoskeletal pain (7.6%), headache (6.7%) and gastritis (4.0%). Medications prescribed by general practitioners were largely as expected for symptomatic management of the respective conditions. One area of potentially inappropriate prescribing identified was inappropriate antibiotic choice. Same-class polypharmacy that may lead to an increased risk of adverse events were also identified, primarily involving multiple paracetamol-containing products, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antihistamines. Other areas of non-adherence to guidelines identified included the potential overuse of oral corticosteroids and oral salbutamol, and inappropriate gastroprotection for patients receiving NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: While prescribing practices are generally appropriate within the private primary care sector, there remain several areas where some potentially inappropriate prescribing occurs. The areas identified should be the focus in continuing efforts to improve prescribing practices to obtain the optimal clinical outcomes while reducing unnecessary risks and healthcare costs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It has been well recognized that pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) can prevent patient harm related to prescribing errors. Various tools have been developed to facilitate the detection and the reduction of inappropriate prescriptions and some have shown benefit on clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economical, and organizational impact of interventions generated by clinical pharmacists in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate the performance of an explicit tool, the Potentially Inappropriate Medication Checklist for Patients in Internal Medicine (PIM-Check), in detecting each pharmacist's intervention. METHODS: A cohort retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients. The impact of PIs based on pharmacists' standard examination was evaluated using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational (CLEO) tool. The performance of PIM-Check in detecting each intervention was assessed by conducting a retrospective medication review based on available information collected from patients' records. A qualitative analysis was also conducted to identify the types of PIs that PIM-Check failed to detect. RESULTS: The study was performed on 162 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range = 46-77 years) and a median hospital stay of 5 days (interquartile range = 4-7 days). The pharmacists generated 1.9 PIs per patient (n = 304) of which 31% were detected by PIM-Check. The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was 84% (n = 255). Among the accepted interventions, 53% (n = 136) had a clinical impact graded CL ≥ 2C (moderate or major), whereas the majority of them were not detected by PIM-Check (63%; 86 out of 136). In addition, 46% of accepted interventions (n = 117) were associated with a cost decrease, among which 62% were not detected by PIM-Check (73 out of 117). The qualitative analysis shows that PIM-Check mostly failed to detect PIs related to dose adjustment, overprescribing, and therapy monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: According to the CLEO tool evaluation of PIs, our results show that clinical pharmacists' interventions are associated with improved clinical outcomes. In comparison with pharmacists' interventions, PIM-Check failed in detecting the majority of interventions associated with a moderate or major impact.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: For more than a decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved in clinical practice for multiple indications such as stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. This study aimed to explore the nature and contributory factors related to medication errors associated with DOACs in hospital settings. METHODS: Analysis of error reports using data from (a) Saudi Food and Drug Authority pharmacovigilance database and (b) local incidents reporting system from two tertiary care hospitals were included. Errors reported between January 2010 to December 2020 were also included. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM (SPSS) Statistics Version 24.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 199 medication error incidents were included. The mean (range) age of affected patients was 63.5 (19-96) years. The mean reported duration of treatment when incidents happened was 90 days, with a very wide range from one day to 12 months. Prescribing error was the most common error type representing 81.4% of all errors. Apixaban was the most frequent drug associated with error reporting with 134 (67.3%) incidents, followed by rivaroxaban (18.6%) and dabigatran (14.1%). The majority of the patients (n = 188, 94.5%) showed comorbidities in addition to the conditions related to DOACs. Polypharmacy, an indication of treatment and duration of therapy were amongst the important contributory factors associated with errors. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study demonstrates the nature of DOAC related medication errors in clinical practice. Developing risk prevention and reduction strategies using the expertise of clinical pharmacists are imperative in promoting patient safety associated with DOAC use.