Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription‐dispensation systems

Ana Belén Jiménez Muñoz (Preventive Medicine and Quality Management Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
Antonio Muiño Miguez (Internal Medicine Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
María Paz Rodriguez Pérez (Preventive Medicine and Quality Management Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
María Esther Durán Garcia (Pharmacy Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
María Sanjurjo Saez (Pharmacy Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

ISSN: 0952-6862

Publication date: 22 March 2011

Abstract

Purpose

Medication errors (MEs) are important in terms of their magnitude and severity, and there are numerous systems in place to reduce their occurrence. However, the ideal system has not yet been identified. The authors' institution uses three different medication prescription‐dispensation systems which operate simultaneously. ME rates were compared, overall and by phase (prescription, transcription and administration) and their overall and specific clinical impact.

Design/methodology/approach

The administration of medicinal products was observed directly and compared with medical and nursing prescriptions. Errors and adverse events were classified by a consensus of experts.

Findings

In the traditional system the error prevalence rate was 13.59 per cent, (99 per cent CI, 12.15‐14.61 per cent), in the single dose system it was 6.43 per cent (99 per cent CI, 5.53‐7.32) and in the electronic prescription system it was 8.86 per cent (99 per cent CI, 7.33‐10.17). The highest error rates in all phases were found in the traditional system. The phase affected by most errors in all three models was transcription, and the least affected was administration, except for the single dose system, in which prescription was the worst. The effects of errors in the administration phase are greater, although less so than with the automated system.

Research limitations/implications

The dispensation phase was not analyzed.

Practical implications

A study of errors will enable us to reduce their occurrence if we know the most frequent types and in which phase they are produced, we will be able to prioritise the areas in which to work and select the necessary preventive measures.

Originality/value

It is possible that automated medication dispensation systems reduce error rates and the severity of their effects.

Keywords

Citation

Belén Jiménez Muñoz, A., Muiño Miguez, A., Paz Rodriguez Pérez, M., Esther Durán Garcia, M. and Sanjurjo Saez, M. (2011), "Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription‐dispensation systems", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 238-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526861111116679

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.