BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Medication errors cause appreciable morbidity and mortality in children. The objective was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce pediatric medication errors, identify gaps in the literature, and perform meta-analyses on comparable studies. METHODS:Relevant studies were identified from searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature and previous systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed original data in any language testing an intervention to reduce medication errors in children. Abstract and full-text article review were conducted by 2 independent authors with sequential data extraction.RESULTS: A total of 274 full-text articles were reviewed and 63 were included. Only 1% of studies were conducted at community hospitals, 11% were conducted in ambulatory populations, 10% reported preventable adverse drug events, 10% examined administering errors, 3% examined dispensing errors, and none reported cost-effectiveness data, suggesting persistent research gaps. Variation existed in the methods, definitions, outcomes, and rate denominators for all studies; and many showed an appreciable risk of bias. Although 26 studies (41%) involved computerized provider order entry, a meta-analysis was not performed because of methodologic heterogeneity. Studies of computerized provider order entry with clinical decision support compared with studies without clinical decision support reported a 36% to 87% reduction in prescribing errors; studies of preprinted order sheets revealed a 27% to 82% reduction in prescribing errors.CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric medication errors can be reduced, although our understanding of optimal interventions remains hampered. Research should focus on understudied areas, use standardized definitions and outcomes, and evaluate cost-effectiveness. Pediatrics

Objectives: In 2006, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) published a special issue summarizing the proceedings of the AEM consensus conference on the "Science of Surge." One major goal of the conference was to establish research priorities in the field of "disasters" surge. For this review, we wished to determine the progress toward the conference's identified research priorities: 1) defining criteria and methods for allocation of scarce resources, 2) identifying effective triage protocols, 3) determining decision-makers and means to evaluate response efficacy, 4) developing communication and information sharing strategies, and 5) identifying methods for evaluating workforce needs.Methods: Specific criteria were developed in conjunction with library search experts. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were queried for peer-reviewed articles from 2007 to 2015 addressing scientific advances related to the above five research priorities identified by AEM consensus conference. Abstracts and foreign language articles were excluded. Only articles with quantitative data on predefined outcomes were included; consensus panel recommendations on the above priorities were also included for the purposes of this review. Included study designs were randomized controlled trials, prospective, retrospective, qualitative (consensus panel), observational, cohort, case-control, or controlled before-and-after studies. Quality assessment was performed using a standardized tool for quantitative studies.Results: Of the 2,484 unique articles identified by the search strategy, 313 articles appeared to be related to disaster surge. Following detailed text review, 50 articles with quantitative data and 11 concept papers (consensus conference recommendations) addressed at least one AEM consensus conference surge research priority. Outcomes included validation of the benchmark of 500 beds/million of population for disaster surge capacity, effectiveness of simulation-and Internet-based tools for forecasting of hospital and regional demand during disasters, effectiveness of reverse triage approaches, development of new disaster surge metrics, validation of mass critical care approaches (altered standards of care), use of telemedicine, and predictions of optimal hospital staffing levels for disaster surge events. Simulation tools appeared to provide some of the highest quality research.

No abstract