PubMed · 11940782
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Keith M Olsen. 2002. Medication errors: problems identified, but what is the solution?. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200204000-00047
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: Intensive care units (ICUs) consume substantial hospital resources, yet "efficiency" is inconsistently defined and measured. This study systematically reviewed how economic efficiency has been conceptualised and quantified in adult ICUs and appraised the quality of evidence. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 and a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD420251107866), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (2000-August 2025), plus global grey sources. Eligible studies explicitly defined efficiency and reported an efficiency metric/model linking ICU inputs (e.g., staff, beds/capacity, time, consumables, or costs) to outputs/outcomes (e.g., throughput/discharges, length of stay/resource use, risk-adjusted mortality). Dual independent screening and extraction were performed. Study quality was appraised using MMAT, and findings were synthesised narratively (SWiM), given heterogeneity. RESULTS: 39 studies (2001-2025) from 17 countries were included, all from high-income or upper-middle-income settings. Four methodological families were identified: (1) frontier modelling (predominantly DEA; occasional SFA/RFDH), (2) benchmarking indicators (risk-adjusted mortality and LOS/resource-use ratios; "efficiency matrix" quadrant classification), (3) cost-outcome evaluations, and (4) operational/process metrics. Across families, variation in decision-making units, input/output selection, and risk adjustment limited comparability; long-term and patient-reported outcomes were absent, and equity considerations were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: ICU efficiency research is feasible but fragmented and often methodologically limited. Standardised definitions, validated risk adjustment, uncertainty quantification, and inclusion of patient-centred and equity-relevant outcomes are needed before efficiency metrics can reliably inform value-based decision making.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify both the frequency and the determinants of drug administration errors in the intensive care unit. DESIGN: Administration errors were detected by using the disguised-observation technique (observation of medication administrations by nurses, without revealing the aim of this observation to the nurses). SETTING: Two Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: The drug administrations to patients in the intensive care units of two Dutch hospitals were observed during five consecutive days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 233 medications for 24 patients were observed to be administered (whether ordered or not) or were observed to be omitted. When wrong time errors were included, 104 administrations with at least one error were observed (frequency, 44.6%), and when they were excluded, 77 administrations with at least one error were observed (frequency, 33.0%). When we included wrong time errors, day of the week (Monday, odds ratio [OR] 2.69, confidence interval [CI] 1.42-5.10), time of day (6-10 pm, OR 0.28, CI 0.10-0.78), and drug class (gastrointestinal, OR 2.94, CI 1.48-5.85; blood, OR 0.12, CI 0.03-0.54; and cardiovascular, OR 0.38, CI,0.16-0.90) were associated with the occurrence of errors. When we excluded wrong time errors, day of the week (Monday, OR 3.14, CI 1.66-5.94), drug class (gastrointestinal, OR 3.47, CI 1.76-6.82; blood, OR 0.21, CI 0.05-0.91; and respiratory, OR 0.22, CI 0.08-0.60), and route of administration (oral by gastric tube, OR 5.60, CI 1.70-18.49) were associated with the occurrence of errors. In the hospital without full-time specialized intensive care physicians (which also lacks pharmacy-provided protocols for the preparation of parenteral drugs), more administration errors occurred, both when we included (OR 5.45, CI 3.04-9.78) and excluded wrong time errors (OR 4.22, CI 2.36-7.54). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to reduce drug administration errors in the intensive care unit should be aimed at the risk factors we identified in this study. Especially, focusing on system differences between the two intensive care units (e.g., presence or absence of full-time specialized intensive care physicians, presence or absence of protocols for the preparation of all parenteral drugs) may help reduce suboptimal drug administration.