First author (year)/country | Study design/study period | Aims | Participants/events | Context | Methods (data collection or intervention) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Short (1993) [20]/Hong Kong | Prospective observational study/1Â year | To find out the cause related to anesthetic critical events | P: anesthesiologists who reported the critical events E: 125 critical events that were reported by anesthesiologists in 16,379 anesthesia cases | A hospital (1430 beds) | D: a review of the voluntary reporting of critical events |
Singleton (1993) [21]/Australia | Retrospective study/NA | To analyze the problems associated with vascular access | P: individuals who voluntarily and anonymously reported any unintended incidents that either reduced or had the potential to reduce the safety margin for a patient E: 65 events involving problems with access to the vascular system of the first 2000 incidents reported to the AIMS | Hospitals and other healthcare settings | D: a review of reporting to AIMS |
Goldspiel (2000) [22]/USA | Project study/54Â months | To reduce the number of chemotherapy-related medication errors | P: members from the pharmacy department, nursing department, National Cancer Institute intramural program, information system department, and hospital administration E: chemotherapy-related medication errors occurred during the study period | A hospital (325 beds) | I: PDCA (plan-do-check-act) performance improvement model with a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach D: prescribing errors that were detected before medication preparation and medication errors that were reported through an occurrence-reporting system |
Taxis (2003) [23]/UK | Qualitative study/76Â days | To investigate the causes of IV medication errors in drug preparation and administration | P: 113 nurses and 1 doctor E: 265 IV medication errors in 483 drug preparation and 447 drug administration | 10 wards in two hospitals | D: observation by trained pharmacists |
Wetterneck (2006) [24]/USA | Project study/6Â months | To describe the use of FMEA to guide the implementation of a smart IV pump | P: a multidisciplinary team which was composed of representatives from anesthesiology, biomedical engineering central supply, industrial engineering, internal medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and quality improvement E: Failure modes expected before implementation of smart IV pump and failure modes that occurred 3Â months after implementation | A hospital | I: smart IV pump implementation equipped with FMEA by a multidisciplinary committee |
Rinke (2007) [25]/USA | Retrospective study/6Â years | To identify patterns in pediatric chemotherapy errors | P: healthcare professionals who voluntarily reported pediatric chemotherapy errors in the national medication safety reporting system E: 310 pediatric chemotherapy error reports of 829,492 errors reported to internet-accessible, anonymous adverse drug reactions and medication errors reporting program | 69 healthcare facilities | D: a review of the incidents reported to the reporting program database from 1999 to 2004 |
Nuckols (2008) [26]/USA | Mixed methods/20,559 bed-days | To compare preventable IV ADE incidence rates between smart pumps and infusion pumps | P: 4 ~ 5 critical care nurses per hospital and 4 board-certified internal medicine physicians E: 100 preventable IV ADE among 4604 patients | ICUs in two hospitals | D: retrospective medical chart review and qualitative descriptions of errors |
Evans (2010) [27]/USA | Project study/22.5Â months | To evaluate the smart system that could detect pump programming errors | P: nurses and critical care clinical pharmacists E: 970 alerts on 25,040 infusion pump cases | ICU (24 beds) in one hospital (456 beds) | I: a smart system that was connected to the EMR to prevent pump programming errors D: follow-up on every pump alert by a critical care clinical pharmacist |
Ligi (2010) [28]/France | Project study/4Â years | To evaluate the effect of continuous incident reporting and subsequent prevention strategies on the incidence of severe iatrogenic events and targeted priorities in admitted neonates | P: staff members (physicians, senior nurses, and nurses) E: 622 iatrogenic events among 1033 neonates | Neonatal center (54 beds) | I: prospective, continuous incident reporting followed by the implementation of prevention strategies such as double-checks infusion pump programming by a multidisciplinary care quality improvement team D: voluntary incident reports from the anonymous, non-punitive system |
Westbrook (2011) [40]/Australia | Prospective observational study/11Â months | To explore the IV administration errors and the relationships between errors, procedural failures, and nurse experience | P: 107 nurses E: 568 IV medication administrations | 6 wards across two hospitals (400 beds, 326 beds, respectively) | D: observation by 3 researchers (registered nurses or doctors) |
Kandil (2012) [2]/Egypt | Prospective observational study/9 months | To find out the patterns of medication errors in an obstetric emergency ward | P: 10,000 patients E: 1976 administration errors of 47,192 medical prescriptions | An obstetric emergency ward | D: observation by head nurses and retrospective review of the patients’ charts and nurses’ notes by the authors |
Rodriguez-Gonzalez (2012) [29]/Spain | Prospective observational study/1Â week | To identify the frequency of medication preparation and administration errors in medical units using automated prescription and dispensing systems | P: 23 nurses and 73 patients E: 509 errors in 2314 medication administrations | Two gastroenterology units (30 and 29 beds) in one hospital (1537 beds) | D: observation by trained pharmacists and nurses |
Ohashi (2013) [30]/USA | Project study/3Â days | To develop a web-based IV medication error observational tool and validate the tool | P: 55 patients E: 171 errors of 181 IV medication administrations observed | Medical ICU, surgical ICU, and general surgical units in one hospital (793 beds) | I: a web-based data collection tool that was developed by an interdisciplinary team D: observation by two nurses using the Redcap |
Nguyen (2014) [37]/Vietnam | Controlled pre-posttest study/5Â weeks | To evaluate the effect of the training program on clinically relevant errors during IV medication preparation and administration | P: nurses in the two ICUs E: 1204 IV medication administration (516 during the baseline period and 688 during the follow-up period) | ICU (the intervention ward) and PSU (the control ward) in one hospital | I: clinical pharmacist-led training program that was developed by a clinical pharmacist and the chief nurse (classroom lectures, practice-based education, two posters and written guidelines for safe preparation and administration) D: observation by nurses |
Prakash (2014) [31]/Canada | Simulation laboratory experiment study/6Â months | To assess the effects of interruption on medication verification and administration errors, and the effectiveness of targeted interventions | P: 37 nurses (experimental group: 19, control group: 18) E: errors in 385 medication verification and administration tasks (pre-intervention: 252, post-intervention: 133) | Simulated ambulatory chemotherapy setting | I: verification booth, standardized workflow, speaking aloud for medication verification tasks, visual timers for IV pushes, no interruption zones with motion-activated indicators, and reminder signage for medication administration tasks D: observation by two trained observers in an observation room located behind a one-way glass |
Bagheri-Nesami (2015) [38]/Iran | Descriptive cross-sectional study/2Â months | To identify the frequency of IV infusion errors and their causes in cardiac critical care units | P: 190 nurses E: 262 IV medication errors | Cardiac critical care units from 12 teaching hospitals | D: self-reporting questionnaire |
Schnock (2017) [32]/USA | Prospective observational study/2 ~ 4 days | To investigate the frequency and types of IV medication errors related to smart pumps | P: 478 patients E: 1691 errors of 1164 IV medication administrations | 10 hospitals (one medical ICU, one surgical ICU, one general surgical unit, and one medical unit at each institution) | D: observation by two trained observers (nurse and/or pharmacist) |
Tsang (2017) [39]/Hong Kong | Project study/38Â months | To describe the application of the point and calling method that is a rule-based behavior composed of various aspects and evaluate the intervention to reduce the high-alert medication using infusion and syringe devices | P: about 1100 nurses who had been taught how to implement the point and calling method. One hundred forty-five DOM, WM, APN, and RN were auditors and 709 nurses were audited by them E: 5 high-alert medication incidents using infusion and syringe devices | 21 wards from one hospital (1400 beds) | I: the point and calling methods on checking HAM using infusion and syringe devices developed by the workgroup comprised APNs and WMs D: questionnaires on the perception of the point and calling methods from the participating wards and incidents reporting |
Lyons (2018) [33]/UK | Mixed methods/21Â months | To describe the incidence, types, and severity of IV medication infusion errors | P: 1326 patients and 32 observers E: 240 infusion errors and 1491 discrepancies of 2008 prescribed IV infusion | 16 NHS hospital trusts | D: observation by two trained observers (usually a nurse and pharmacist) |
Schnock (2018) [34]/USA | Project study/3Â years | To evaluate the preliminary effects of the infusion safety intervention bundle that was developed to decrease IV medication administration errors | P: 840 patients and 9 hospitals - Pre-intervention: 418 patients - Post-intervention: 422 patients E: 2031 IV medication administrations - Pre-intervention: 972 - Post-intervention: 1059 | 9 hospitals (adult medical/surgical units and medical/surgical ICUs at each institution) | I: infusion safety intervention bundle developed by a multidisciplinary research team - Labeling/IV tubing intervention, unauthorized medication intervention, drug library use intervention D: observation by two trained observers (nurse and/or pharmacist) |
Taylor (2019) [35]/USA | Retrospective study/1Â year | To identify the frequency of medication errors with infusion pumps and analyze the contributing factors | P: healthcare professionals who reported patient safety-related incidents and serious events in a secure, web-based system E: 1004 medication errors with infusion pumps | 132 hospitals | D: a review of the events reported to the PA-PSRS during 2018 |
Schilling (2022) [36]/Germany | Descriptive cross-sectional study (two-phase)/6Â months | â–ª The first phase: to develop a German pediatric HAM list â–ª The second phase: to identify DRP and related interventions for the HAM selected in the first phase | P: 42 pharmacists - Response rate: the first phase (60%), the second phase (40%) E: 216 DRPs | NA | D: a two-step survey by mailing to the participants |