IntroductionPatients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for prescribing errors and related adverse drug events (ADEs). An effective intervention to decrease this risk, based on studies conducted mainly in North America, is on-ward participation of a clinical pharmacist in an ICU team. As the Dutch Healthcare System is organized differently and the on-ward role of hospital pharmacists in Dutch ICU teams is not well established, we conducted an intervention study to investigate whether participation of a hospital pharmacist can also be an effective approach in reducing prescribing errors and related patient harm (preventable ADEs) in this specific setting.MethodsA prospective study compared a baseline period with an intervention period. During the intervention period, an ICU hospital pharmacist reviewed medication orders for patients admitted to the ICU, noted issues related to prescribing, formulated recommendations and discussed those during patient review meetings with the attending ICU physicians. Prescribing issues were scored as prescribing errors when consensus was reached between the ICU hospital pharmacist and ICU physicians.ResultsDuring the 8.5-month study period, medication orders for 1,173 patients were reviewed. The ICU hospital pharmacist made a total of 659 recommendations. During the intervention period, the rate of consensus between the ICU hospital pharmacist and ICU physicians was 74%. The incidence of prescribing errors during the intervention period was significantly lower than during the baseline period: 62.5 per 1,000 monitored patient-days versus 190.5 per 1,000 monitored patient-days, respectively (P < 0.001). Preventable ADEs (patient harm, National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention severity categories E and F) were reduced from 4.0 per 1,000 monitored patient-days during the baseline period to 1.0 per 1,000 monitored patient-days during the intervention period (P = 0.25). Per monitored patient-day, the intervention itself cost €3, but might have saved €26 to €40 by preventing ADEs.ConclusionsOn-ward participation of a hospital pharmacist in a Dutch ICU was associated with significant reductions in prescribing errors and related patient harm (preventable ADEs) at acceptable costs per monitored patient-day.Trial registration numberISRCTN92487665

Objectives: It is unclear how nurses adjust the double check during injectable medication administration andguarantee patient safety. We used the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) to determine the fit betweenthe double check according to the protocol (work-as-imagined) and clinical practice (work-as-done). Weaimed to learn about process variation in order to optimize safety during injectable medication administration. Methods: A qualitative study (February-July 2018) with semi-structured group interviews. An internal medicineand a surgery ward of two Dutch hospitals participated (four wards total). We interviewed nurses about injectable medication administration practices, based on prior observations. A work-as-done model was constructedfor each hospital. The work-as-imagined model was based on the Dutch protocol for safe injectablemedication administration. Results: A total of 27 nurses were interviewed. In both hospitals, nurses split the double check into a digital andphysical check to improve workflow. The digital check was routinely conducted. For the physical check, nursesmade their own risk-impact analysis and assessed staffing, familiarity with the medication, severity of sideeffects, type of 

ObjectiveTo assess medical teams’ ability to recognize adverse drug events (ADEs) in older inpatients.MethodsThe study cohort comprised 250 patients aged 65 years or older consecutively admitted to Internal Medicine wards of three hospitals in the Netherlands between April and November 2007. An independent expert team identified ADEs present upon admission or occurring during hospitalization by a structured retrospective patient chart review. For all ADEs identified, the expert team assessed causality, severity, preventability, and recognition by medical teams.ResultsThe medical teams did not recognize 19.9 % of all ADEs present upon admission {60.4 ADEs [95 % confidence interval (CI) 51.5–70.8] per 100 hospitalizations} and 20.3 % of all ADEs occurring during the hospital stay [47.2 ADEs (95 % CI 39.4–56.5) per 100 hospitalizations]. Unrecognized ADEs were significantly more often ADEs with possible causality (p=0.014, df=1), ADEs caused by medication errors (p<0.001, df=1), and ADEs not manifesting as new symptoms (p<0.001, df=1). The medical teams did not recognize 23.2 % of mild to moderately severe ADEs and 16.5 % of severe, life-threatening, or fatal ADEs. The recognition of ADEs varied with event type.ConclusionsThe recognition of ADEs by medical teams was substantial for those ADEs with evident causality and with clinically apparent and severe consequences. ADEs mimicking underlying pathologies with a lower severity went unrecognized much more often, as did those resulting only in abnormal laboratory values. Tools to improve the recognition of ADEs by medical teams should, therefore, focus on those ADEs that are more challenging to detect.

BackgroundOlder patients are at high risk for experiencing Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) during hospitalization. To be able to reduce ADEs in these vulnerable patients, hospitals first need to measure the occurrence of ADEs, especially those that are preventable. However, data on preventable ADEs (pADEs) occurring during hospitalization in older patients are scarce, and no ‘gold standard’ for the identification of ADEs exists.MethodologyThe study was conducted in three hospitals in the Netherlands in 2007. ADEs were retrospectively identified by a team of experts using a comprehensive and structured patient chart review (PCR) combined with a trigger-tool as an aid. This ADE identification strategy was applied to a cohort of 250 older hospitalized patients. To estimate the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities, Cohen’s kappa values were calculated.Principal FindingsIn total, 118 ADEs were detected which occurred in 62 patients. This ADE yield was 1.1 to 2.7 times higher in comparison to other ADE studies in older hospitalized patients. Of the 118 ADEs, 83 (70.3%) were pADEs; 51 pADEs (43.2% of all ADEs identified) caused serious patient harm. Patient harm caused by ADEs resulted in various events. The overall intra-rater agreement of the developed strategy was substantial (κ = 0.74); the overall inter-rater agreement was only fair (κ = 0.24).Conclusions/SignificanceThe ADE identification strategy provided a detailed insight into the scope of ADEs occurring in older hospitalized patients, and showed that the majority of (serious) ADEs can be prevented. Several strategy related aspects, as well as setting/study specific aspects, may have contributed to the results gained. These aspects should be considered whenever ADE measurements need to be conducted. The results regarding pADEs can be used to design tailored interventions to effectively reduce harm caused by medication errors. Improvement of the inter-rater reliability of a PCR remains challenging.