Three different methods to detect clinically relevant drug dosing errors in pediatric intensive care unit. Veldhoen E., Van Munster S., Bollen C., Van Der Ent C., & Maat B. 2016. abstract bibtex Background and aims Drug dosing errors unfortunately are common in critical care. To identify the optimal method for registration of dosing errors in daily practice, we compared three different methods to detect dosing errors on PICU in the same cohort during 12 months. We both studied the error detection rates as well as the clinical relevance. Methods In Pharmacist Review (PhR) an independent pharmacist collected all medication prescriptions one or two days a week randomly during the whole year and assessed them for drug dosing errors. In PICU registration (PICU-Reg) all dosing errors were registered daily by both medical and nursing staff. The third registration method was the hospital-wide used Reporting Patient Incidents (RPI), registering all incidents anonymously and voluntarily online. Consequences of errors were classified using the NCC MERP. Results Drug prescriptions on 927 patients-days were studied. The pharmacist judged 306 of 1497 (20.4%) medication orders as a dosing error; after review by a clinician only 11.4% were considered to be actual dosing errors. Although PICU-Reg had a high response rate (84%), it reported only 14 dosing errors during 12months in all PICU admissions. The RPI reported 9 dosing errors during 12 months in all PICU admissions. None of the errors reported by PhR was recognized by the RPI. Only 3 errors were reported by PhR and PICU-Reg, although with very different consequences. Conclusions The observed incidence and clinical consequence of dosing error is extremely dependent on the method of registration.
@misc{veldhoen_e._three_2016,
title = {Three different methods to detect clinically relevant drug dosing errors in pediatric intensive care unit},
abstract = {Background and aims Drug dosing errors unfortunately are common in critical care. To identify the optimal method for registration of dosing errors in daily practice, we compared three different methods to detect dosing errors on PICU in the same cohort during 12 months. We both studied the error detection rates as well as the clinical relevance. Methods In Pharmacist Review (PhR) an independent pharmacist collected all medication prescriptions one or two days a week randomly during the whole year and assessed them for drug dosing errors. In PICU registration (PICU-Reg) all dosing errors were registered daily by both medical and nursing staff. The third registration method was the hospital-wide used Reporting Patient Incidents (RPI), registering all incidents anonymously and voluntarily online. Consequences of errors were classified using the NCC MERP. Results Drug prescriptions on 927 patients-days were studied. The pharmacist judged 306 of 1497 (20.4\%) medication orders as a dosing error; after review by a clinician only 11.4\% were considered to be actual dosing errors. Although PICU-Reg had a high response rate (84\%), it reported only 14 dosing errors during 12months in all PICU admissions. The RPI reported 9 dosing errors during 12 months in all PICU admissions. None of the errors reported by PhR was recognized by the RPI. Only 3 errors were reported by PhR and PICU-Reg, although with very different consequences. Conclusions The observed incidence and clinical consequence of dosing error is extremely dependent on the method of registration.},
journal = {European Journal of Pediatrics},
author = {{Veldhoen E.} and {Van Munster S.} and {Bollen C.} and {Van Der Ent C.} and {Maat B.}},
year = {2016},
keywords = {*error, *pediatric intensive care unit, Child, controlled study, human, major clinical study, nursing staff, pharmacist, prescription, registration}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"CuMsTmbaC22DF5YtX","bibbaseid":"veldhoene-vanmunsters-bollenc-vanderentc-maatb-threedifferentmethodstodetectclinicallyrelevantdrugdosingerrorsinpediatricintensivecareunit-2016","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-05-12T20:20:57.533Z","title":"Three different methods to detect clinically relevant drug dosing errors in pediatric intensive care unit","author_short":["Veldhoen E.","Van Munster S.","Bollen C.","Van Der Ent C.","Maat B."],"year":2016,"bibtype":"misc","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero/gxu917","bibdata":{"bibtype":"misc","type":"misc","title":"Three different methods to detect clinically relevant drug dosing errors in pediatric intensive care unit","abstract":"Background and aims Drug dosing errors unfortunately are common in critical care. To identify the optimal method for registration of dosing errors in daily practice, we compared three different methods to detect dosing errors on PICU in the same cohort during 12 months. We both studied the error detection rates as well as the clinical relevance. Methods In Pharmacist Review (PhR) an independent pharmacist collected all medication prescriptions one or two days a week randomly during the whole year and assessed them for drug dosing errors. In PICU registration (PICU-Reg) all dosing errors were registered daily by both medical and nursing staff. The third registration method was the hospital-wide used Reporting Patient Incidents (RPI), registering all incidents anonymously and voluntarily online. Consequences of errors were classified using the NCC MERP. Results Drug prescriptions on 927 patients-days were studied. The pharmacist judged 306 of 1497 (20.4%) medication orders as a dosing error; after review by a clinician only 11.4% were considered to be actual dosing errors. Although PICU-Reg had a high response rate (84%), it reported only 14 dosing errors during 12months in all PICU admissions. The RPI reported 9 dosing errors during 12 months in all PICU admissions. None of the errors reported by PhR was recognized by the RPI. Only 3 errors were reported by PhR and PICU-Reg, although with very different consequences. Conclusions The observed incidence and clinical consequence of dosing error is extremely dependent on the method of registration.","journal":"European Journal of Pediatrics","author":[{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Veldhoen E."],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Van Munster S."],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bollen C."],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Van Der Ent C."],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Maat B."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2016","keywords":"*error, *pediatric intensive care unit, Child, controlled study, human, major clinical study, nursing staff, pharmacist, prescription, registration","bibtex":"@misc{veldhoen_e._three_2016,\n\ttitle = {Three different methods to detect clinically relevant drug dosing errors in pediatric intensive care unit},\n\tabstract = {Background and aims Drug dosing errors unfortunately are common in critical care. To identify the optimal method for registration of dosing errors in daily practice, we compared three different methods to detect dosing errors on PICU in the same cohort during 12 months. We both studied the error detection rates as well as the clinical relevance. Methods In Pharmacist Review (PhR) an independent pharmacist collected all medication prescriptions one or two days a week randomly during the whole year and assessed them for drug dosing errors. In PICU registration (PICU-Reg) all dosing errors were registered daily by both medical and nursing staff. The third registration method was the hospital-wide used Reporting Patient Incidents (RPI), registering all incidents anonymously and voluntarily online. Consequences of errors were classified using the NCC MERP. Results Drug prescriptions on 927 patients-days were studied. The pharmacist judged 306 of 1497 (20.4\\%) medication orders as a dosing error; after review by a clinician only 11.4\\% were considered to be actual dosing errors. Although PICU-Reg had a high response rate (84\\%), it reported only 14 dosing errors during 12months in all PICU admissions. The RPI reported 9 dosing errors during 12 months in all PICU admissions. None of the errors reported by PhR was recognized by the RPI. Only 3 errors were reported by PhR and PICU-Reg, although with very different consequences. Conclusions The observed incidence and clinical consequence of dosing error is extremely dependent on the method of registration.},\n\tjournal = {European Journal of Pediatrics},\n\tauthor = {{Veldhoen E.} and {Van Munster S.} and {Bollen C.} and {Van Der Ent C.} and {Maat B.}},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tkeywords = {*error, *pediatric intensive care unit, Child, controlled study, human, major clinical study, nursing staff, pharmacist, prescription, registration}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Veldhoen E.","Van Munster S.","Bollen C.","Van Der Ent C.","Maat B."],"key":"veldhoen_e._three_2016","id":"veldhoen_e._three_2016","bibbaseid":"veldhoene-vanmunsters-bollenc-vanderentc-maatb-threedifferentmethodstodetectclinicallyrelevantdrugdosingerrorsinpediatricintensivecareunit-2016","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*error","*pediatric intensive care unit","Child","controlled study","human","major clinical study","nursing staff","pharmacist","prescription","registration"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["three","different","methods","detect","clinically","relevant","drug","dosing","errors","pediatric","intensive","care","unit","veldhoen e.","van munster s.","bollen c.","van der ent c.","maat b."],"keywords":["*error","*pediatric intensive care unit","child","controlled study","human","major clinical study","nursing staff","pharmacist","prescription","registration"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["9LqPNaySNpNxYBFzj"]}