No abstract

IntroductionMedication errors during paediatric resuscitation are thought to be common. However, there is little evidence about the individual process steps that contribute to such medication errors in this context.ObjectivesTo describe the incidence, nature and severity of medication errors in simulated paediatric resuscitations, and to employ human reliability analysis to understand the contribution of discrepancies in individual process steps to the occurrence of these errors.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study of simulated resuscitations subjected to video microanalysis, identification of medication errors, severity assessment and human reliability analysis in a large English teaching hospital. Fifteen resuscitation teams of two doctors and two nurses each conducted one of two simulated paediatric resuscitation scenarios.ResultsAt least one medication error was observed in every simulated case, and a large magnitude (>25% discrepant) or clinically significant error in 11 of 15 cases. Medication errors were observed in 29% of 180 simulated medication administrations, 40% of which considered to be moderate or severe. These errors were the result of 884 observed discrepancies at a number of steps in the drug ordering, preparation and administration stages of medication use, 8% of which made a major contribution to a resultant medication error. Most errors were introduced by discrepancies during drug preparation and administration.ConclusionsMedication errors were common with a considerable proportion likely to result in patient harm. There is an urgent need to optimise existing systems and to commission research into new approaches to increase the reliability of human interactions during administration of medication in the paediatric emergency setting.

Background: In a recent human reliability analysis (HRA) of simulated pediatric resuscitations, ineffective retrieval of preparation and administration instructions from online injectable medicines guidelines was a key factor contributing to medication administration errors (MAEs). Objective: The aim of the present study was to use a specific HRA to understand where intravenous medicines guidelines are vulnerable to misinterpretation, focusing on deviations from expected practice ( discrepancies) that contributed to large-magnitude and/or clinically significant MAEs. Methods: Video recordings from the original study were reanalyzed to identify discrepancies in the steps required to find and extract information from the NHS Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG) website. These data were combined with MAE data from the same original study. Results: In total, 44 discrepancies during use of the IMG were observed across 180 medication administrations. Of these discrepancies, 21 (48%) were associated with an MAE, 16 of which (36% of 44 discrepancies) made a major contribution to that error. There were more discrepancies (31 in total, 70%) during the steps required to access the correct drug webpage than there were in the steps required to read this information (13 in total, 30%). Discrepancies when using injectable medicines guidelines made a major contribution to 6 (27%) of 22 clinically significant and 4 (15%) of 27 large-magnitude MAEs. Conclusion and Relevance: Discrepancies during the use of an online injectable medicines guideline were often associated with subsequent MAEs, including those with potentially significant consequences. This highlights the need to test the usability of guidelines before clinical use.