Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17776
Title: Evaluation of medication dose omissions amongst inpatients in a hospital using an electronic Medication Management System.
Authors: Hunt, Katherine V;Harding, Andrew M;Taylor, Simone E;Curtain, Colin
Affiliation: Pharmacy Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia..
Issue Date: 22-May-2018
EDate: 2018-05-22
Citation: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 2018; online first: 22 May
Abstract: Whilst many dose omissions cause no patient harm, inappropriate dose omissions have been associated with increased length of hospital stay, risk of sepsis, and mortality. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of omitted doses overall and of high risk medication dose omissions in an organization using an electronic Medication Management System. A retrospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in an Australian tertiary referral health service. All routinely documented electronic inpatient dose administration records from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015 were included. Period prevalence and characteristics of dose omissions overall and of high-risk medication dose omissions were determined. During the study period, 3.3 million inpatient doses were scheduled for administration, with doses endorsed as "not given" comprising 6.2% of all scheduled doses. Non-valid dose omissions (medication not available or no justification documented) comprised 1.2% of scheduled doses. Patient refusal accounted for one third of all dose omissions, while for 12% no explanation was provided and 7% were endorsed "medication not available". High-risk medications accounted for 20% of all dose omissions. One in 20 antimicrobial doses scheduled were omitted, and of these, 17% were due to patient refusal. The period prevalence of dose omissions in this large study after electronic Medication Management System implementation is similar to that found when paper charts were used. Although most dose omissions appear appropriate, many orders were not given due to patient refusal or with no documented justification. Interventions to minimize unintentional dose omissions are indicated.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17776
DOI: 10.1111/jep.12944
ORCID: 0000-0003-3992-7316
0000-0002-0592-518X
0000-0001-5029-7541
PubMed URL: 29786928
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: clinical audit
clinical safety
health services research
medical informatics
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.