2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/158219
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Comparison of three measures of medication administration accuracy
Abstract:
Comparison of three measures of medication administration accuracy
Conference Sponsor:Western Institute of Nursing
Conference Year:2001
Author:Pepper, Ginette, PhD
P.I. Institution Name:University of Colorado Health Science Center
Title:Associate Professor
Contact Address:School of Nursing, 4200 East 9th Avenue, C288-20, Denver, CO, 80262, USA
Contact Telephone:303.315.5767
Methods: In a crossed factorial design three types of data collectors (RN, LPN, Pharmacy Technician) were randomly assigned to a data collection method (incident report, chart review, observation of nurses delivering medications) in each facility. Each dose administered was compared to the prescriber's orders and deviations were considered errors. Time required for tasks using each method was recorded so that cost per dose could be calculated. A research pharmacist performed an independent determination of errors to assess the accuracy of each data collector and these results were the standards for comparison. Clinical significance of errors was judged by a physician panel. Data were analyzed using the Kappa statistic and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: In the 36 institutions, the observation method detected 373 of 456 pharmacist-confirmed errors committed on 2, 557 doses (15%) compared to 24 errors detected by chart review (1%), and 1 using incident report (0.04%). Seven out of ten observers and all chart reviewers achieved at least good comparability with the standard ((> 0.40). Pharmacy technicians were the most accurate overall ((=0.74). Detection costs per dose was $8.00 for observation and $1.92 for chart review for the same doses. Costs per error detected were $10.47 for observation, $16.28 for chart review, and $4.46 for incident reports. Nurses were the most cost-effective chart reviewers while pharmacy technicians were the most cost-effective observers. Out of 456 errors, 35 (8%) were deemed potentially clinically significant.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Western Institute of Nursing

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleComparison of three measures of medication administration accuracyen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/158219-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Comparison of three measures of medication administration accuracy</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Western Institute of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2001</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Pepper, Ginette, PhD</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Colorado Health Science Center</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Associate Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">School of Nursing, 4200 East 9th Avenue, C288-20, Denver, CO, 80262, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">303.315.5767</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">Ginny.Pepper@UCHSC.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Methods: In a crossed factorial design three types of data collectors (RN, LPN, Pharmacy Technician) were randomly assigned to a data collection method (incident report, chart review, observation of nurses delivering medications) in each facility. Each dose administered was compared to the prescriber's orders and deviations were considered errors. Time required for tasks using each method was recorded so that cost per dose could be calculated. A research pharmacist performed an independent determination of errors to assess the accuracy of each data collector and these results were the standards for comparison. Clinical significance of errors was judged by a physician panel. Data were analyzed using the Kappa statistic and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: In the 36 institutions, the observation method detected 373 of 456 pharmacist-confirmed errors committed on 2, 557 doses (15%) compared to 24 errors detected by chart review (1%), and 1 using incident report (0.04%). Seven out of ten observers and all chart reviewers achieved at least good comparability with the standard ((&gt; 0.40). Pharmacy technicians were the most accurate overall ((=0.74). Detection costs per dose was $8.00 for observation and $1.92 for chart review for the same doses. Costs per error detected were $10.47 for observation, $16.28 for chart review, and $4.46 for incident reports. Nurses were the most cost-effective chart reviewers while pharmacy technicians were the most cost-effective observers. Out of 456 errors, 35 (8%) were deemed potentially clinically significant.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T20:37:44Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T20:37:44Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Institute of Nursingen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.