Jerry Fahrni

Tag: Medication Safety

  • Forcing re-entry of patient ID cuts wrong-patient errors

    You know how websites make you double enter your email address and password when you sign up for a service? Well, apparently that’s not a bad system for making sure you have the right patient during order entry. You’d think we would have figured that out a while back, but then again this is healthcare we’re talking about; equation for healthcare technology “innovation” is ([today’s technology] -10 years).

    The study found that requiring clinicians to re-enter patient IDs resulted in a 41% reduction in wrong-patient orders. Single-click confirmation of patient ID reduced wrong-patient orders by 16%. It’s not all peaches and cream though. The study found that double entry increased order entry by 6.6 seconds. Oh no!

    Understanding and preventing wrong-patient electronic orders: a randomized controlled trial (J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jun 29 )
    Abstract
    Objective: To evaluate systems for estimating and preventing wrong-patient electronic orders in computerized physician order entry systems with a two-phase study. Materials and methodsIn phase 1, from May to August 2010, the effectiveness of a ‘retract-and-reorder’ measurement tool was assessed that identified orders placed on a patient, promptly retracted, and then reordered by the same provider on a different patient as a marker for wrong-patient electronic orders. This tool was then used to estimate the frequency of wrong-patient electronic orders in four hospitals in 2009. In phase 2, from December 2010 to June 2011, a three-armed randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of two distinct interventions aimed at preventing these errors by reverifying patient identification: an ‘ID-verify alert’, and an ‘ID-reentry function’.
    Results: The retract-and-reorder measurement tool effectively identified 170 of 223 events as wrong-patient electronic orders, resulting in a positive predictive value of 76.2% (95% CI 70.6% to 81.9%). Using this tool it was estimated that 5246 electronic orders were placed on wrong patients in 2009. In phase 2, 901 776 ordering sessions among 4028 providers were examined. Compared with control, the ID-verify alert reduced the odds of a retract-and-reorder event (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98), but the ID-reentry function reduced the odds by a larger magnitude (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71).
    Discussion and conclusion: Wrong-patient electronic orders occur frequently with computerized provider order entry systems, and electronic interventions can reduce the risk of these errors occurring.

  • Prenteral nutrition error [from #ISMP]

    From the latest ISMP Medication Safety Alert!, a mix up between an adult parenteral nutrition (PN) template in an electronic health record (#EHR) and one for pediatrics.

    The big difference between these two is how you order electrolytes; it’s a really big difference.

    The most shocking part of all this was that the error made it’s way through the physician that ordered it, a pharmacist that “entered the PN order” (I’m assuming in the compounding application), the “trained technician” that prepared it – missing the fact that the bag contained a whooping 2600mL of sterile water, the pharmacist that checked it, and finally the nurse that hung it. Swiss cheese anyone?
    (more…)

  • Warning labels on outpatient prescription vials not so great after all

    Everyone has seen them, I know you have. Those little colored labels that the pharmacy slaps on your bottle when you get a prescription: “May cause drowsiness”, “Avoid excess sun”, “Do not take aspirin products without doctor approval” and so on. There are a ton of them. I remember seeing them lined up in front of me when I was working retail. Sometimes it became a game to see how many you could fit on the bottle without covering up valuable information for the patient. I’ve also been in pharmacies where the warning labels were simply printed alongside the medication label.

    Well, it appears that this tradition may not be the best way to warn patients about potential issues with their medication. I mean, who really reads those things anyway?

    A small study recently published in the journal PLoS ONE took a look at these warning labels and determined that people really don’t pay attention. Not surprising.
    (more…)

  • Cool Pharmacy Tech – Real time volume detection in syringes

    I received the Tweet below last night from Denis Lebel. The link took me to a YouTube video that demonstrates the use of a camera and software to determine the volume inside a syringe. It’s really cool.

    I had an idea like this about 6-8 months ago. I talked it over with a colleague and they said it couldn’t be done. Well it seems the smart folks at Scorpion Vision Software did what couldn’t be done. Surprise! Denis said they’ve been working on it for about a year. Congratulations are in order as I think this is brilliant.

    Translated text from the video description: “This video shows a proof of concept that allows the detection volume of syringes in real time thanks to the vision software. This real-time detection, combined with the reading of bar code products can be an important addition to the quality control of the preparation of intravenous medications in sterile chamber in pharmacies of health facilities.

    In this video we demonstrate how the Scorpion vision software software identifies the”bar code” that identifies the type of syringe used, the position of the piston and thesyringe body in 3D space and then estimating the volume contained in the syringe.”

  • Medication reconciliation on an internal medicine unit in French hospital [Article]

    Interesting abstract from Presse Medicale (Paris, France) talking about medication reconciliation on an internal medicine unit in a French hospital. The authors found lots or discrepancies, which isn’t a surprise. They also found that pharmacists could help identify and correct many of the discrepancies, which also isn’t a surprise.

    Like many other articles I’ve read recently, this one is from data collected quite a while ago. The information was obtained from 61 patients between  June and October 2010. The article is from the March 2012 issue of the journal. I always marvel at how long it takes study results to get published.

  • Article: The costs of adverse drug events in community hospitals

    The article below appeared in the March 2012 edition of Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety – yes, that’s a real journal. I couldn’t make this stuff up – Anyway, there’s nothing new here, we all know that ADEs are expensive. How expensive? Well, the bottom line is that “ADEs were associated with an increased adjusted cost of $3,420 and an adjusted increase in length of stay (LOS) of 3.15 days”. Depending on the number of ADEs your facility has you could easily use these numbers to justify the services of a pharmacist.

    The only problem with the information is that it’s from a 20-month period between January 2005 and August 2006. I hate to break it to you Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Aafety, but that makes the information all but useless. Interesting, but useless.

  • Physician dispensing, that’s some bad mojo right there

    Physician dispensing is a hot topic for several reasons. And while I’m not opposed to the use of medication kiosks to dispense medications to patients, I believe that their use must be carefully defined and continuously monitored. As I said in a post in September 2010 “Under the right set of circumstances, and with thoughtful implementation, kiosks could free up pharmacists to spend more time with patients in emergency departments and urgent care clinics across the country. After all, don’t pharmacists argue for more clinical face time with patients and less association with the physical medication dispensing process? That’s what I’ve been hearing from pharmacists for years.” The key part of that quote is “under the right set of circumstances”. You cannot remove the pharmacist form the medication use process. It would be a mistake to do so, and I believe ultimately would lead to increased patient risk. I’ve worked in retail, long-term care, home infusion and acute care pharmacy, and let’s face it, physicians struggle at times to get things right. That’s why God made pharmacists. While I’m not naive enough to think that a pharmacist has to speak to each and every patient about every medication they use each time they receive it, I do think there should be some oversight of the process; regardless of the method of distribution.
    (more…)

  • Failure to use “low concentration” alerts properly leads to errors [ISMP Safety Alert]

    When I read the headline in the most recent ISMP Medication Safety Alert! – Smart pump custom concentrations without hard “low concentration” alerts – I didn’t really get it. So what if a smart pump doesn’t stop you from programming “low concentrations”? Well after reading through the article, and the examples, it made perfect sense.

    Failing to employ available dose error-reduction software (DERS) as intended and to heed important clinical alerts are common contributors to these errors. In particular, the misuse of custom concentration options (i.e., user must fill in the concentration) that do not employ a hard (requires reprogramming) minimum concentration limit is a prime example. This issue contributes largely to preventable errors with smart pumps given the counterintuitive, inverse relationship between concentration and volume. More concentrated drugs require less volume to deliver a specified dose; less concentrated drugs require more volume to deliver a specified dose. When using “fill-in-the-blank” custom concentrations, the concentration must be programmed into the pump so it can calculate the volume needed to deliver the prescribed dose. If the programmed concentration is lower than the actual concentration in the infusion bag or syringe, the pump will deliver an overdose. If the programmed concentration is higher than the actual concentration in the bag or syringe, the pump will deliver an underdose. Without a hard minimum concentration limit, the former scenario has led to life-threatening events, such as those described below.

    Here’s a great example from the article that made the light bulb go off in my mind:

    A physician prescribed IV HYDROmorphone 20 mg/100 mL (0.2 mg/mL) to infuse at 2.5 mg/hour. In this hospital, the standard concentration for this infusion was 0.1 mg/mL, so the custom concentration of 0.2 mg/mL had to be entered into the smart pump. The nurse selected the custom concentration option then mistakenly entered 2.5 mg/100 mL as the concentration instead of 20 mg/100 mL. Given the erroneously programmed concentration of 0.025 mg/mL, the pump issued a soft (can be overridden) low concentration alert. The nurse overrode the warning, mistakenly believing the warning was inconsequential. Based on the erroneous concentration, the smart pump infused the drug at a rate of 100 mL/hour, while the intended rate was 12.5 mL/hour. The pump delivered the entire bag of HYDROmorphone 20 mg to the patient in 1 hour.

  • ADR death statistics for the US, 1999-2006 [article]

    Here’s an interesting article from the February 2012 issue of The Annals of Pharmacotherpy [Adverse Drug Reaction Deaths Reported in United States Vital Statistics, 1999-2006].1 The most commonly involved drug classes are no big surprise, but it was interesting to note that the incidence of ADR death changed with age, race, and urbanization. I suppose the increase in death rate for ADR with increased age and rural living isn’t that big of a surprise, but the differences among sex and race was unexpected. 

    ABSTRACT

    Current Issue Cover

    Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an important source of morbidity and mortality during medical care.
    Objective: To examine the trends in mortality related to ADRs reported through the US vital statistics system since January 1999.
    Methods: Demographic characteristics of people reported as dying as a result of ADRs from 1999 to 2006 were evaluated. The National Mortality Statistics database was queried for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes Y40-Y59, which are specific for deaths due to adverse effects of drugs in therapeutic use. The data were subgrouped based on demographic factors to identify important trends. Crude rates were calculated based on incidents per 100,000 population. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for subgroups were calculated by logistical regression.
    Results: During the 8-year study period 2,313,902,748 person years were evaluated and 2341 ADR-related deaths were identified. Annual rates ranged from 0.08/100,000 to 0.12/100,000, and rates increased significantly over time at a rate of 0.0058 per year. ADR deaths were significantly more likely in persons older than 55 years. The risk was greatest in those aged 75 years or older (OR 6.96, 95% CI 6.30 to 7.69). ADR deaths were higher among men than women. Rates varied by race and ethnicity and were highest among blacks (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.54). Geographically, rates varied widely between states. Based on urbanization, rates were highest in extremely rural (non-core) areas (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.38). The most common drug classes associated with death were anticoagulants, opioids, and immunosuppressants.
    CONCLUSIONS: ADR death rates have a clear association with age, race, and urbanization subgroups. Older individuals, males, blacks, and individuals residing in extremely rural areas experienced higher ADR death rates; these findings warrant further study to develop prevention strategies.

    1. Ann Pharmacother February 2012 vol. 46 no. 2 169-175

  • Med Adherence – Difference between prescribed and dosing histories [Article]

    Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology (2012 Feb 10;52:275-301. Epub 2011 Sep 19) – No big surprise here, but check out the graphs (posted below), especially the second one where you can see the effect poor compliance/adherence has on therapeutic concentration. Crazy.

    Abstract

    Satisfactory adherence to aptly prescribed medications is essential for good outcomes of patient care and reliable evaluation of competing modes of drug treatment. The measure of satisfactory adherence is a dosing history that includes timely initiation of dosing plus punctual and persistent execution of the dosing regimen throughout the specified duration of treatment. Standardized terminology for initiation, execution, and persistence of drug dosing is essential for clarity of communication and scientific progress. Electronic methods for compiling drug dosing histories are now the recognized standard for quantifying adherence, the parameters of which support model-based, continuous projections of drug actions and concentrations in plasma that are confirmable by intermittent, direct measurements at single time points. The frequency of inadequate adherence is usually underestimated by pre-electronic methods and thus is clinically unrecognized as a frequent cause of failed treatment or underestimated effectiveness. Intermittent lapses in dosing are potential sources of toxicity through hazardous rebound effects or recurrent first-dose effects.

    (more…)