Hospital medication errors: A cross-sectional study

38Citations
Citations of this article
156Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Medication errors (MEs) are among the most common types of incidents reported in Australian and international hospitals. There is no uniform method of reporting and reducing these errors. This study aims to identify the incidence, time trends, types and factors associated with MEs in a large regional hospital in Australia. Methods: A 5-year cross-sectional study. Results: The incidence of MEs was 1.05 per 100 admitted patients. The highest frequency of errors was observed during the colder months of May-August. When distributed by day of the week, Mondays and Tuesdays had the highest frequency of errors. When distributed by hour of the day, time intervals from 7 am to 8 am and from 7 pm to 8 pm showed a sharp increase in the frequency of errors. One thousand and eighty-eight (57.8%) MEs belonged to incidence severity rating (ISR) level 4 and 787 (41.8%) belonged to ISR level 3. There were six incidents of ISR level 2 and only one incident of ISR level 1 reported during the five-year period 2014-2018. Administration-only errors were the most common accounting for 1070 (56.8%) followed by prescribing-only errors (433, 23%). High-risk medications were associated with half the number of errors, the most common of which were narcotics (17.9%) and antimicrobials (13.2%). Conclusions: MEs continue to be a problem faced by international hospitals. Inexperience of health professionals and nurse-patient ratios might be the fundamental challenges to overcome. Specific training of junior staff in prescribing and administering medication and nurse workload management could be possible solutions to reducing MEs in hospitals.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Isaacs, A. N., Ch’ng, K., Delhiwale, N., Taylor, K., Kent, B., & Raymond, A. (2021). Hospital medication errors: A cross-sectional study. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa136

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free