Authors

  1. Al Qubaisi, Mai MPharm
  2. Stewart, Derek PgCert, BSc, MSc, PhD, MRPharmS, FFRPS
  3. Tonna, Antonella BSc, MSc, PhD, MRPharmS
  4. Strath, Alison BSc, FRPharmS

Abstract

Review objective: The objective of this review is to critically appraise, synthesize and present the available evidence on health professionals' beliefs, attitudes and experiences of medication error reporting.

 

Review questions: More specifically, this review seeks to answer the following questions.

 

In relation to health professionals (i.e. doctors, nurses and pharmacists):

 

1. What are their beliefs and attitudes towards medication error reporting?

 

2. What are their experiences of medication error reporting? (E.g. nature of feedback obtained, any subsequent changes in their practice, ease of use of the reporting system, any improvements required to optimize medication error reporting.)

 

3. What are the reasons given or factors which are associated with under-reporting of medication errors? (E.g. lack of awareness or understanding of the reporting system, fear of possible consequences of reporting, and forgetting to report.)

 

 

Background: Promoting patient safety through minimizing medication errors is a key global healthcare objective. The most widely used and accepted definition of the term "medication error" is that of the United States (US) National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCCMERP), which defines "medication error" as "any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in control of the health care professional, patient or consumer".1 The United Kingdom (UK) National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) proposes a similar definition of "any incident where there has been an error in the process of prescribing, dispensing, preparing, administering, monitoring, or providing medicines advice, regardless of whether any harm occurred or was possible".2 In a philosophical discussion on the construction of the term, Ferner and Aronson suggest a definition of "failures in the treatment process that lead to, or have the potential to lead to harm to the patient".3(p.1013) All definitions emphasize harm and prevention.

 

There is some overlap and often confusion between the terms "medication error" and "adverse drug reaction". The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) defines an "adverse drug reaction" as "a harmful and unintended reaction that occurs at a dose normally used for the prophylaxis, diagnosis or treatment of disease or the modification of physiological functions".4 Those adverse drug reactions which are deemed preventable are also considered to be medication errors.5

 

The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention highlights that medication errors "may be related to professional practice, health care products, procedures and systems, including prescribing; order communication; product labeling, packaging and nomenclature; compounding; dispensing; distribution; administration; education; monitoring; and use".1 It proposes a classification system of severity of error ranging from no error: circumstances or events that have the capacity to cause error, error no harm, error harm and error death.1

 

Most of the published literature on medication errors appears to relate to "prescribing errors". Aronson and Ferner distinguish between "prescription" and "prescribing". While "prescription" is the "act of writing the prescription", "prescribing" relates more to associated cognitive decision-making processes.6(p.602) Aronson later proposes a definition of "prescribing error" as a "failure in the prescribing process that leads to, or has the potential to lead to harm to the patient".6(p.602)

 

Whatever the classification of medication error, it is clear that these greatly impact patient care. Indeed, medication errors are common. According to a report published by the US Institute of Medicine in 2006, medication errors accounted for 1.5 million injuries annually at a cost of up to $1.35 billion in the form of lost productivity, wages and additional medical expenses.7 Data from the United Kingdom, collated and reported by the NPSA for the period from October 2010 to September 2011, illustrates that medication errors are the second most common cause of patient safety issues (following patient accidents) during hospital stay, contributing to 11% of all incidents, affecting 134,684 patients.8

 

Several recent systematic reviews have focused on prescribing errors. Lewis et al. reported the prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital in-patients.9 They reported that prescribing errors were common, affecting 7% of all medication orders, 2% of patient days and 50% of hospital admissions, from studies largely conducted in the US and UK. They also noted that reporting rates varied widely due to inconsistent and often absent study definitions in the term, "prescribing error", and differences in study methodologies, specifically the research outcome measures. In the same year, Ross et al. reported on the scale of prescribing errors committed by junior doctors, reporting error rates of two to 514 per 1000 items prescribed and 4.2-82% of patients or charts reviewed.10

 

Dornan et al. further reported primary data on prescribing errors in the hospital setting, highlighting that errors are often multi-factorial, with several active failures and error-provoking conditions (e.g. lack of training or experience, fatigue, stress, high workload for the prescriber and inadequate communication between healthcare professionals) often acting together to cause them.11 More recently, similar findings were reported by Ross et al.,12 Ryan et al.,13 and Duncan et al.,14 as part of the Prescribing Outcomes for Trainee doctors Engaged in Clinical Training (PROTECT) study of prescribing errors committed by junior doctors in Scottish hospitals.

 

The NCCMERP in the US and the NPSA in the UK have similar mission statements in terms of promoting safe medication use and increasing awareness of medication errors through communication, reporting and promotion of medication error prevention strategies.1,2 Indeed the vision of NCCMERP is that "no patient will be harmed by a medication error".2 Cohen notes that while most health professionals are familiar with the "five rights" of safe medication use (right patient, drug, time, dose, route of administration), there is a gulf between theory and practice, which can lead to error.15

 

Both the NCCMERP and the NPSA place much of their focus on medication error reporting. Goals of NCCMERP include stimulating the "development and use of reporting and evaluation systems by individual health care organizations" and stimulating "reporting to a national system for review, analysis and development of recommendations to reduce and ultimately prevent medication errors".1 Similarly, the NPSA describes "tools and guidance to help organizations improve their reporting levels".2 These include: ensuring quality reports, engaging frontline staff and management, reporting regularly, reporting serious incidents quickly, making reporting matter and ensuring consistency. Adopting these tools and guidance into practice should increase reporting system efficiency with subsequent impact on the incidence, prevalence, nature and severity of medication errors, thus improving patient safety and care.

 

While several systematic reviews have reported error prevalence and associated causes of errors, the authors did not describe the current quantitative or qualitative data regarding medication error reporting and impact factors relevant to the reporting systems. Furthermore, a preliminary search of the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports and the Cochrane Library has revealed that there is not currently a systematic review either published or underway on this topic. There is therefore a major gap in the literature in terms of the beliefs, attitudes and experiences of health professionals in relation to medication error reporting. For error reporting systems to operate efficiently and optimize their positive contribution to medication errors and thus patient safety, it is vital that all health professionals understand the reporting processes, that appropriate errors are reported and that feedback on reports at the individual practitioner and organizational level allow reflection of practice to further improve patient safety. The systematic review will focus on these aspects and synthesize the available literature on issues of beliefs, attitudes and experiences, with specific attention to issues around under-reporting of medication errors by health professionals. At this stage, any studies, which focus on patient reporting of medication errors, will be excluded.

 

Article Content

Inclusion criteria

Types of participants

This review will only consider studies that include doctors, nurses and pharmacists, as these are the health professionals involved in the patient medication journey and specifically in the processes of prescribing of medicines (doctors, nurses and pharmacists all have prescribing rights in certain countries, e.g. the UK), administering (all are involved) and dispensing (all may be involved to some extent in different countries).

 

Phenomena of interest

While there is no intervention (as would be the case in reviews of effectiveness or cost-effectiveness), the qualitative component of this review will consider studies that investigate the phenomenon of medication error reporting from a number of different perspectives (e.g. doctors, nurses, pharmacists). The quantitative component will consider studies (most likely survey-based) measuring attitudes and beliefs using tools such as Likert-type scales.

 

Types of outcomes

This review will only consider studies which report beliefs, attitudes and experiences of health professionals (doctors, nurses, pharmacists) in relation to medication error reporting.

 

Types of studies

This review will consider any research design (quantitative, qualitative and mixed). Quantitative studies will be included with outcomes around attitudes and beliefs, while qualitative with outcomes around attitudes, beliefs and experiences. Quantitative studies will be observational (e.g. cross-sectional surveys to measure attitudes and beliefs using Likert type scales) and qualitative will include ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory studies most likely using either interview (e.g. structured, semi-structured, unstructured) and focus group approaches for data collection. No studies will be excluded on the basis of the design or approach to data collection.

 

Search strategy

The search strategy aims to find published studies. A three-step search strategy will be utilized in this review as follows:

 

1. An initial scoping search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken, using search terms of ['belief*' or 'attitude*' or 'experience*'] and 'medication error reporting'.

 

2. Using the keywords and main title and abstract words/phrases identified, searches of all databases will be undertaken.

 

 

The likely search string will be:

 

'medication error*' or 'prescribing error*' or 'transcribing error*' or 'dispensing error*' or 'administration error*'

 

and

 

'report*'

 

and

 

'health professional*' or 'healthcare professional*' or 'doctor*' or 'general practitioner*' or 'physician*' or 'consultant*' or 'nurse*' or 'pharmacist*'

 

and

 

'belief*' or 'view*' or 'experience*' or 'opinion*' or 'attitude*' or 'intention*' or 'faith*' or knowledge*' or

 

'understanding*'.

 

The search string will be applied with results and exceptions recorded. The reference lists of all identified papers will be reviewed for additional studies. Studies will be identified from the following bibliographic databases:

 

a. Medline

 

b. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)

 

c. International pharmaceutical abstracts (IPA)

 

d. Embase

 

e. Scopus

 

f. Psycharticles

 

g. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

 

h. JBI Database of systematic reviews

 

i. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE)

 

 

All studies identified during the database search will be assessed for relevance to the review based on information via the title, abstract and description by two independent reviewers (MA, DS). A third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. The full article will be retrieved for all those that appear to meet the inclusion criteria. A search of Google Scholar will be undertaken to further ensure that all relevant studies have been identified. Only studies published as peer reviewed papers will be included: abstracts, conference proceedings and letters etc. will be excluded. The search will include peer reviewed studies published in English between 1992 and 2013 (i.e. a 20-year timeframe as the scoping search has identified a body of literature published within that time period).

 

Assessment of methodological quality

All studies identified during the database search will be assessed for relevance to the review protocol based on information via the title, abstract and full study review by two independent reviewers. A third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached.

 

Quantitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by the two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) (Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.

 

Qualitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI) (Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.

 

Data collection

Quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted independently by two reviewers from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI and JBI-QARI (Appendix II). As the quantitative studies will be observational rather than interventional, only the comparative elements from JBI-MAStARI will be irrelevant. The data extracted will include specific details about the populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the objective and specific review questions. Attempts will be made to contact authors of studies if data are missing or if clarification is required regarding unclear data.

 

Data synthesis

All results will be subject to double data entry. It is considered that pooling of data derived from quantitative studies is likely to be inappropriate due to an observational study design, hence the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.

 

Qualitative research findings will, where possible be pooled using JBI-QARI. This will involve the aggregation or synthesis of findings to generate a set of statements that represent that aggregation, through assembling the findings (Level 1 findings) rated according to their quality, and categorizing these findings on the basis of similarity in meaning (Level 2 findings). These categories are then subjected to a meta-synthesis in order to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings (Level 3 findings) that can be used as a basis for evidence-based practice. Where textual pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form.

 

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest are identified.

 

Acknowledgements

The reviewers would like to acknowledge their employers, Robert Gordon University, for providing an opportunity to take part in the JBI Comprehensive Systematic Review Course. The Embassy of United Arab Emirates provided the funding for Mai Al Qubaisi to undertake JBI training.

 

References

 

1. National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. Available at http://www.nccmerp.org [accessed September 2013]. [Context Link]

 

2. National Patient Safety Agency. Available at http://www.npsa.nhs.uk [accessed September 2013]. [Context Link]

 

3. Ferner RE, Aronson JK. Clarification of terminology in medication errors. Drug Safety 2006;29(11):1011-1022. [Context Link]

 

4. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Available at http://www.mhra.gov.uk [accessed September 2013]. [Context Link]

 

5. Morimoto T, Gandhi T, Seger T, Hsieh T, Bates D. Adverse drug events and medication errors: detection and classification methods. Quality and Safety in Healthcare 2004;13(4):306-314. [Context Link]

 

6. Aronson JK. Medication errors: definitions and classification. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2009;67(6):599-604. [Context Link]

 

7. Aspden P, Wolcott J, Bootman JL, Cronenwett LR. Preventing medication errors. Washington: National Academies Press, 2007. [Context Link]

 

8. NHS Direct Patient Safety Agency Quarterly Data Workbooks. Available at http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/collections/ quarterly-data-summaries. [accessed September 2013]. [Context Link]

 

9. Lewis P, Dornan T, Taylor D, Tully MP, Wass V, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients, a systematic review of the literature. Drug safety 2009;32(5):379-389. [Context Link]

 

10. Ross S, Bond C, Rothnie H, Thomas S, MacLeod MJ. What is the scale of prescribing errors committed by junior doctors? A systematic review. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2009;67(6):629-640. [Context Link]

 

11. Dornan T, Ashcroft D, Heathfield H, Lewis P, Miles J, Taylor D, Tully M, Wass V. An in depth investigation into causes of prescribing errors by foundation trainees in relation to their medical education? Equip Study. London: General Medical Council, 2009. [Context Link]

 

12. Ross S, Ryan C, Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Jer KS, Lee AJ, MacLeod MJ, Maxwell S, McKay G, McLay J, Webb DJ, Bond C. Preceived causes of prescribing errors by junior doctors in hospital inpatients: a study from the PROTECT programme. BMJ Quality and Safety 2013; 22(2):97-102. [Context Link]

 

13. Ryan C, Ross S, Davey P, Duncan EM, Fielding S, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Ker J, Lee AJ, MacLeod MJ, Maxwell S, McKay G, McLay J, Webb DJ, Bond C. Junior doctors' perceptions of their self-efficacy in prescribing, their prescribing errors and the possible causes of errors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2013; in press. [Context Link]

 

14. Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Davey P, Maxwell S, McKay GA, McLay J, Ross S, Ryan C, Webb DJ, Bond C. Learning curves, taking instructions, and patient safety: using a theoretical domains framework in an interview study to investigate prescribing errors among trainee doctors. Implementation Science 2012;7(1):86. [Context Link]

 

15. Cohen MR. Causes of medication errors. Washington: American Pharmacists Association, 2007. [Context Link]

 

16. (1) Santell JP, Hicks RW, McMeekin J, Cousins DD. Medication errors: experience of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) MEDMARX reporting system. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2003; 43(7):760-767.

 

17. (2) NCC MERP. What is a Medication Error?. [homepage on the Internet]. http://www.nccmerp.org/press/press1995-10-16.html; 2013 MAY 2013].

Appendix I: Appraisal instruments

 

QARI appraisal instrument

 

MAStARI Appraisal instrument[Context Link]

Appendix II: Data extraction instruments

 

QARI data extraction instrument

 

MAStARI data extraction instrument[Context Link]

 

Keywords: health professional; medication error reporting; beliefs; attitudes; experiences; under reporting