Background:Opioids have narrow therapeutic windows, and errors in ordering or administration can be fatal. The purpose of this study was to describe deaths involving hydromorphone and morphine, which have similar-sounding names, but different potencies.
Methods:In this case series, we describe deaths of patients admitted to hospital or residents of long-term care facilities that involved hydromorphone and morphine. We searched for deaths referred to the Patient Safety Review Committee of the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario between 2007 and 2012, and subsequently reviewed by 2014. We reviewed each case to identify intervention points where errors could have been prevented.
Results:We identified 8 cases involving decedents aged 19 to 91 years. The cases involved errors in prescribing, order processing and transcription, dispensing, administration and monitoring. For 7 of the 8 cases, there were multiple (2 or more) possible intervention points. Six cases may have been prevented by additional patient monitoring, and 5 cases involved dispensing errors.Interpretation: Opioid toxicity deaths in patients living in institutions can be prevented at multiple points in the prescribing and dispensing processes. Interventions aimed at preventing errors in hydromorphone and morphine prescribing, administration and patient monitoring should be implemented and rigorously evaluated.
Methods
SettingIn Ontario (population 13.6 million), the Coroners Act states that all deaths that are sudden and unexpected, or from any cause other than disease, must be reported to a coroner.
Study population
DesignFor each identified death, we (A.L. and N.P.) reviewed the Patient Safety Review Committee case review file, the reports of the investigating coroner, autopsy reports, relevant portions of the hospital medical record and toxicology reports, where available and applicable. We recorded demographic (age and sex) and medical information (medical history, medications ordered, medication administered and events leading to death) and then drafted a narrative summary for each case.After reviewing all cases, we (A.L., M.H., J.G., J.M., I.D. and N.P.) identified the points at which each death could have been prevented using the stages of prescribing employed elsewhere. 8 The purpose of this framework was to identify the stage of the process where adverse drug events occurred and to help determine which adverse drug events are preventable.
8The original framework included 4 stages: ordering, transcribing, dispensing and administration. 8 We renamed 2 stages: we use "prescribing" instead of "ordering" (because prescribing is a more general term that includes decisions about whether or not to order medications) and "processing" instead of "transcribing" (because the former applies to both computer and paper orders). We also added the "monitoring" stage because it is particularly important in opioid prescribing. Two reviewers (N.P. and A.L.) independently reviewed each case for potential intervention points and resolved disagreements by disc...