We aimed to establish the frequency and nature of drug administration error in anaesthesia (a significant subset of error in medicine) at two hospitals. Anaesthetists were asked to return a study form anonymously for every anaesthetic, indicating whether or not a drug administration error or pre-error (defined as any incident with potential to become an error) had occurred. Further details were sought if the response was affirmative. From 10806 anaesthetics, 7794 study forms were returned, representing response rates of 80% from Hospital A and 57% from Hospital B (72% overall). The frequency (95% confidence intervals) of drug administration error, of any type, per anaesthetic was 0.0075 (0.006 to 0.009), of IV bolus errors was 0.005 (0.0035 to 0.006) and of pre-errors was 0.004 (0.003 to 0.005), with no significant difference between hospitals. Overall, one drug administration error was reported for every 133 anaesthetics. The two largest individual categories of error involved incorrect doses (20%) and substitutions (20%) with IV boluses of drug. Of the IV bolus substitutions, 69% occurred between different pharmacological classes. One patient was aware while under muscle relaxation, and two required prolonged ventilation. In addition, 47 transient physiological effects were reported, of which five required intervention. We conclude that drug administration error during anaesthesia is considerably more frequent than previously reported.

Objective To clinically evaluate a new patented multimodal system (SAFERSleep) designed to reduce errors in the recording and administration of drugs in anaesthesia. Design Prospective randomised open label clinical trial.Setting Five designated operating theatres in a major tertiary referral hospital.Participants Eighty nine consenting anaesthetists managing 1075 cases in which there were 10 764 drug administrations.Intervention Use of the new system (which includes customised drug trays and purpose designed drug trolley drawers to promote a well organised anaesthetic workspace and aseptic technique; pre-filled syringes for commonly used anaesthetic drugs; large legible colour coded drug labels; a barcode reader linked to a computer, speakers, and touch screen to provide automatic auditory and visual verification of selected drugs immediately before each administration; automatic compilation of an anaesthetic record; an on-screen and audible warning if an antibiotic has not been administered within 15 minutes of the start of anaesthesia; and certain procedural rules-notably, scanning the label before each drug administration) versus conventional practice in drug administration with a manually compiled anaesthetic record. Main outcome measuresPrimary: composite of errors in the recording and administration of intravenous drugs detected by direct observation and by detailed reconciliation of the contents of used drug vials against recorded administrations; and lapses in responding to an intermittent visual stimulus (vigilance latency task). Secondary: outcomes in patients; analyses of anaesthetists' tasks and assessments of workload; evaluation of the legibility of anaesthetic records; evaluation of compliance with the procedural rules of the new system; and questionnaire based ratings of the respective systems by participants. ResultsThe overall mean rate of drug errors per 100 administrations was 9.1 (95% confidence interval 6.9 to 11.4) with the new system (one in 11 administrations) and 11.6 (9.3 to 13.9) with conventional methods (one in nine administrations) (P=0.045 for difference). Most were recording errors, and, though fewer drug administration errors occurred with the new system, the comparison with conventional methods did not reach significance. Rates of errors in drug administration were lower when anaesthetists consistently applied two key principles of the new system (scanning the drug barcode before administering each drug and keeping the voice prompt active) than when they did not: mean 6.0 (3.1 to 8.8) errors per 100 administrations v 9.7 (8.4 to 11.1) respectively (P=0.004). Lapses in the vigilance latency task occurred in 12% (58/471) of cases with the new system and 9% (40/473) with conventional methods (P=0.052). The records generated by the new system were more legible, and anaesthetists preferred the new system, particularly

SummaryWe developed evidence-based recommendations for the minimisation of errors in intravenous drug administration in anaesthesia from a systematic review of the literature that identified 98 relevant references (14 with experimental designs or incident reports and 19 with reports of cases or case series). We validated the recommendations using reports of drug errors collected in a previous study. One general and five specific strong recommendations were generated: systematic countermeasures should be used to decrease the number of drug administration errors in anaesthesia; the label on any drug ampoule or syringe should be read carefully before a drug is drawn up or injected; the legibility and contents of labels on ampoules and syringes should be optimised according to agreed standards; syringes should (almost) always be labelled; formal organisation of drug drawers and workspaces should be used; labels should be checked with a second person or a device before a drug is drawn up or administered.

Accidents or errors are only the tip of the incident iceberg. Through effective, nonpunitive incident reporting, which includes reports of near-misses and system problems in addition to actual accidents, the systems-approach allows the complete set of contributing factors underlying an accident to be understood and addressed. Feedback to participants and targeted improvement in the workplace is also important to demonstrate that incident data are being used appropriately, and to maintain high levels of on-going reporting and enthusiasm for the scheme. Drug administration error is a serious problem, which warrants a well-reasoned approach to its improvement.

SummaryA safety-orientated system of delivering parenteral anaesthetic drugs was assessed in a prospective incident monitoring study at two hospitals. Anaesthetists completed an incident form for every anaesthetic, indicating if an incident occurred. Case mix data were collected and the number of drug administrations made during procedures estimated. From February 1998 at Hospital A and from June 1999 at Hospital B, until November 2003, 74 478 anaesthetics were included, for which 59 273 incident forms were returned (a 79.6% response rate). Fewer parenteral drug errors occurred with the new system than with conventional methods (58 errors in an estimated 183 852 drug administrations (0.032%, 95% CI 0.024-0.041%) vs 268 in 550 105 (0.049%, 95% CI 0.043-0.055%) respectively, p = 0.002), a relative reduction of 35% (difference 0.017%, 95% CI 0.006-0.028%). No major adverse outcomes from these errors were reported with the new system while 11 (0.002%) were reported with conventional methods (p = 0.055). We conclude that targeted system re-design can reduce medical error.

Our results are comparable with other international prospective estimates indicating that drug administration error is of concern in China as elsewhere. These results will form a baseline from which to detect the effects of countermeasures.

ContextDespite the growing use of virtual patients (VPs) in medical education, few studies have explored the features and effectiveness of VP‐based medical communication skills training. We undertook a systematic review to summarise the design and evaluation of VP‐based medical communication skills training systems in order to identify features of successful cases.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched four databases for studies published between 2006 and 2018. Using a refined classification scheme, we extracted data on instructional design (scenario and instructional intervention), technological design (modality and interaction), and evaluation (user experience, learning effectiveness and evaluator). We assessed the quality of studies using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the QualSyst standard assessment criteria.ResultsA total of 14 studies were included for review. Of these, 85.7% (n = 12) were quantitative and 71.4% (n = 10) involved undergraduate students. The most common VP training scenario was history taking followed by the delivery of bad news. Diverse instructional interventions, including tutorials, learning activities, and feedback, were embedded in the VPs. The first‐person perspective animated within‐screen size VP was a popular technological feature. Most evaluations concerned the reality of simulation (for user experience) and skill in expressing empathy (as a learning outcome). Of the eight comparative studies, half reported significant attitude or skill improvements in the VP group. The distinct features of VPs shown to be effective were well‐designed instructional interventions (eg, a pre‐activity with a protocol‐informed tutorial), and post‐activity (eg, debrief or reflection), scaffolding and human feedback, but not system feedback.ConclusionsEvidence‐based VP training can enable students to gain communication skills in a safe and affordable learning environment. Elaborate technology alone cannot guarantee effective learning, but evidence‐based instructional interventions can facilitate its optimal use and bring about better learning outcomes.

No abstract