Evaluation of medication error rates in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the diversity of reports and on the rates of medications errors (MEs) in Saudi Arabia, we performed the first meta-analysis to determine the rate of medications errors in Saudi Arabia using meta-analysis in the hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search through August 2019 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify all observational studies conducted in hospital settings in Saudi Arabia that reported the rate of MEs. A random-effects models were used to calculate overall MEs, as well as prescribing, dispensing, and administration error rates. The I 2 statistics were used to analyze heterogeneity. Results: Sixteen articles were included in this search. The total incidence of MEs in Saudi Arabia hospitals was estimated at 44.4%. Prescribing errors, dispensing errors, and adminstration errors incidents represent 40.2%, 28.2%, and 34.5% out of the total number of reported MEs, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally found to be >90% (I-squared statistic). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the MEs common in health facilities. Additional efforts in the field are needed to improve medication management systems in order to prevent patient harm incidents.

Prevalence of medication administration errors in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis up to 2017 to explore sources of heterogeneity

“…This meta-analysis confirms that medication administration errors are common in hospitalized adult patients. However, estimating exact prevalence rates remains a great challenge, as shown by the substantial heterogeneity in previous meta-analyses [9,10,12]. In this metaanalysis, we sought to investigate factors affecting heterogeneity to improve error prevalence assessment.…”

“…The high heterogeneity in our meta-analyses was expected. Indeed, this heterogeneity is highlighted in the literature [9,10,12], and it could be attributed to many factors, including study design and error detection methods, etc. [10].…”

“…However, these two reviews were limited by the high statistical heterogeneity, hindering the meta-analysis of included studies [9,10]. Other meta-analyses focused on specific countries, such as those by Taghizadeh et al [11] in Iran and Almalki et al [12] in Saudi Arabia, have also shown highly statistically heterogeneous administration error rates.…”

“…Although high heterogeneity in error rates has been highlighted [9,10,12], there is scarcity in studies attempting to explore heterogeneity in pooled error rates. This heterogeneity was suggested to be related to study design and error detection methods, among others [10].…”

“…So far, statistical heterogeneity is a main limitation for meta-analyzing administration error rates [10]; high heterogeneity questions the validity and reliability of the results of a meta-analysis [13] posing restrictions on their use [12]. The quantification of administration error rates with control of heterogeneity provides a valuable safety indicator to guide control measures in hospitals [14].…”