Unprevented or prevented dispensing incidents: which outcome to use in dispensing error research?

K Lynette James, Dave Barlow, Robin Burfield, Sarah Hiom, Dave Roberts, Cate Whittlesea

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives:  To compare the rate, error type, causes and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents reported by Welsh National Health Service (NHS) hospital pharmacies.
Methods:  Details of all unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents occurring over 3 months (September–December 2005) at five district general hospitals across Wales were reported and analysed using a validated method. Rates of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents were compared using Mann–Whitney U test. Reported error types, contributory factors and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented incidents were compared using Fisher's exact test.
Key findings:  Thirty-five unprevented and 291 prevented dispensing incidents were reported amongst 221 670 items. The rate of unprevented (16/100 000 items) and prevented dispensing incidents (131/100 000 items; P = 0.04) was significantly different. There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving the wrong directions/warnings on the label (prevented, n = 100, 29%; unprevented, n = 4, 10%; P = 0.02) and the wrong drug details on the label (prevented, n = 15, 4%; unprevented, n = 6, 14%; P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving supply of the wrong strength (prevented, n = 46, 14%; unprevented, n = 2, 5%; P = 0.02) and issue of expired medicines (prevented, n = 3, 1%; unprevented, n = 5, 12%; P = 0.002).
Conclusion:  The use of prevented dispensing incidents as a surrogate marker for unprevented incidents is questionable. There were significant differences between unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents in terms of rate and error types. This is consistent with the medication error iceberg. Care must be exercised when extrapolating prevented dispensing incident data on error types to unprevented dispensing incidents.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)36-50
Number of pages15
JournalInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Ice Cover
Medication Errors
District Hospitals
Pharmacies
Wales
National Health Programs
Nonparametric Statistics
Research
General Hospitals
Biomarkers
Labels
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Medicine
Health
Direction compound

Cite this

Unprevented or prevented dispensing incidents: which outcome to use in dispensing error research? / James, K Lynette; Barlow, Dave; Burfield, Robin; Hiom, Sarah; Roberts, Dave; Whittlesea, Cate.

In: International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2011, p. 36-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

James, K Lynette ; Barlow, Dave ; Burfield, Robin ; Hiom, Sarah ; Roberts, Dave ; Whittlesea, Cate. / Unprevented or prevented dispensing incidents: which outcome to use in dispensing error research?. In: International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 2011 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 36-50.
@article{d01bd409e290427e87cba32a78fd066e,
title = "Unprevented or prevented dispensing incidents: which outcome to use in dispensing error research?",
abstract = "Objectives:  To compare the rate, error type, causes and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents reported by Welsh National Health Service (NHS) hospital pharmacies. Methods:  Details of all unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents occurring over 3 months (September–December 2005) at five district general hospitals across Wales were reported and analysed using a validated method. Rates of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents were compared using Mann–Whitney U test. Reported error types, contributory factors and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented incidents were compared using Fisher's exact test. Key findings:  Thirty-five unprevented and 291 prevented dispensing incidents were reported amongst 221 670 items. The rate of unprevented (16/100 000 items) and prevented dispensing incidents (131/100 000 items; P = 0.04) was significantly different. There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving the wrong directions/warnings on the label (prevented, n = 100, 29{\%}; unprevented, n = 4, 10{\%}; P = 0.02) and the wrong drug details on the label (prevented, n = 15, 4{\%}; unprevented, n = 6, 14{\%}; P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving supply of the wrong strength (prevented, n = 46, 14{\%}; unprevented, n = 2, 5{\%}; P = 0.02) and issue of expired medicines (prevented, n = 3, 1{\%}; unprevented, n = 5, 12{\%}; P = 0.002). Conclusion:  The use of prevented dispensing incidents as a surrogate marker for unprevented incidents is questionable. There were significant differences between unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents in terms of rate and error types. This is consistent with the medication error iceberg. Care must be exercised when extrapolating prevented dispensing incident data on error types to unprevented dispensing incidents.",
author = "James, {K Lynette} and Dave Barlow and Robin Burfield and Sarah Hiom and Dave Roberts and Cate Whittlesea",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1111/j.2042-7174.2010.00071.x",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "36--50",
journal = "International Journal of Pharmacy Practice",
issn = "0961-7671",
publisher = "Pharmaceutical Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Unprevented or prevented dispensing incidents: which outcome to use in dispensing error research?

AU - James, K Lynette

AU - Barlow, Dave

AU - Burfield, Robin

AU - Hiom, Sarah

AU - Roberts, Dave

AU - Whittlesea, Cate

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Objectives:  To compare the rate, error type, causes and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents reported by Welsh National Health Service (NHS) hospital pharmacies. Methods:  Details of all unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents occurring over 3 months (September–December 2005) at five district general hospitals across Wales were reported and analysed using a validated method. Rates of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents were compared using Mann–Whitney U test. Reported error types, contributory factors and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented incidents were compared using Fisher's exact test. Key findings:  Thirty-five unprevented and 291 prevented dispensing incidents were reported amongst 221 670 items. The rate of unprevented (16/100 000 items) and prevented dispensing incidents (131/100 000 items; P = 0.04) was significantly different. There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving the wrong directions/warnings on the label (prevented, n = 100, 29%; unprevented, n = 4, 10%; P = 0.02) and the wrong drug details on the label (prevented, n = 15, 4%; unprevented, n = 6, 14%; P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving supply of the wrong strength (prevented, n = 46, 14%; unprevented, n = 2, 5%; P = 0.02) and issue of expired medicines (prevented, n = 3, 1%; unprevented, n = 5, 12%; P = 0.002). Conclusion:  The use of prevented dispensing incidents as a surrogate marker for unprevented incidents is questionable. There were significant differences between unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents in terms of rate and error types. This is consistent with the medication error iceberg. Care must be exercised when extrapolating prevented dispensing incident data on error types to unprevented dispensing incidents.

AB - Objectives:  To compare the rate, error type, causes and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents reported by Welsh National Health Service (NHS) hospital pharmacies. Methods:  Details of all unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents occurring over 3 months (September–December 2005) at five district general hospitals across Wales were reported and analysed using a validated method. Rates of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents were compared using Mann–Whitney U test. Reported error types, contributory factors and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented incidents were compared using Fisher's exact test. Key findings:  Thirty-five unprevented and 291 prevented dispensing incidents were reported amongst 221 670 items. The rate of unprevented (16/100 000 items) and prevented dispensing incidents (131/100 000 items; P = 0.04) was significantly different. There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving the wrong directions/warnings on the label (prevented, n = 100, 29%; unprevented, n = 4, 10%; P = 0.02) and the wrong drug details on the label (prevented, n = 15, 4%; unprevented, n = 6, 14%; P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving supply of the wrong strength (prevented, n = 46, 14%; unprevented, n = 2, 5%; P = 0.02) and issue of expired medicines (prevented, n = 3, 1%; unprevented, n = 5, 12%; P = 0.002). Conclusion:  The use of prevented dispensing incidents as a surrogate marker for unprevented incidents is questionable. There were significant differences between unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents in terms of rate and error types. This is consistent with the medication error iceberg. Care must be exercised when extrapolating prevented dispensing incident data on error types to unprevented dispensing incidents.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78751488031&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.2010.00071.x

U2 - 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2010.00071.x

DO - 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2010.00071.x

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 36

EP - 50

JO - International Journal of Pharmacy Practice

JF - International Journal of Pharmacy Practice

SN - 0961-7671

IS - 1

ER -