Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 1814201

Severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program.

Abstract

A medication error-reporting program is described. Medication errors at a large teaching hospital are reported through traditional incident reports. Specific information on the errors is documented on an additional form; data captured include the type of error, system breakdown point, and class of drug involved. A severity ranking that reflects patient outcome is also assigned to each medication error. The data are entered into a relational database and analyzed. Reports are generated that show the overall error rate, the distribution of errors by severity ranking and drug class, and the error types, system breakdown points, and drug classes associated with errors of the highest severity rankings. Between January and December 1990, the number of medication error reports received per month ranged from 73 to 141, and the number of errors reported per month increased during the year. Although the incident report-based method underestimates the actual number of medication errors, the program has been effective in identifying problem areas and trends so that quality assurance and medical committees can implement measures to improve drug use. The use of a severity-indexed medication error-reporting program based on incident reports and managed through a relational database has revealed problems that are then addressed by other quality assurance measures.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S C Hartwig, S D Denger, P J Schneider. 1991. Severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1814201/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A new system for defining endoscopic complications emphasizing the measure of importance.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no satisfactory systems for defining, classifying, and/or scoring endoscopic complications, although it would be important for quality assurance, comparative studies, and outcomes research. Recently the term "negative outcomes" was proposed rather than "complications," and an approach that incorporates "measures of importance" was added to compare negative outcomes. METHODS: A system was developed that defines, classifies, and grades negative outcomes with a scoring system based on measures of importance. Information was recorded on a Morbidity and Mortality (M & M) form, which was used at a monthly quality assurance (M & M) conference. Several measures of importance related to the immediate negative outcome (O) were quantified (effect of the complication on completion of the endoscopy, change in level of care, change in number of hospital days, necessity for new invasive procedures). The disability (D), defined as a residual or chronic negative outcome caused by the complication, was characterized and scored. Death (D) was also characterized, the value varying with circumstances. As a quantitative measure, an overall ODD score was used. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three negative outcomes were retrospectively classified using the new M & M form and the ODD score was applied for 117 complications. Complications were ranked according to the ODD score. CONCLUSION: A system for defining, classifying, and grading negative outcomes of endoscopic procedures is proposed with a quantitative scoring system that emphasizes measures of importance. The ODD score looks at the immediate negative outcome and also the separate long-term issues of disability and death.

Documentation