Expert opinion survey reveals challenges in medication error reporting among nursing leaders, suggesting enhanced training and anonymous systems.
Background: Medication errors (MEs) remain a significant concern in healthcare settings globally, particularly in India, where Nurses play a vital role in preventing MEs. This expert opinion survey explored the experience of nursing leaders in handling and reporting of MEs. Methods: This expert opinion study was based on a descriptive survey conducted among 51 nursing leaders from top corporate hospitals in India. The survey consisted of 15 questions covering four key areas: (1) frequency and types of errors, (2) barriers to error reporting, (3) department-related factors, and (4) training/education. Responses were collected through an online self-administered questionnaire between June and November 2024. Results: Most of the nursing leaders (96%) reported encountering MEs. Among them, 39.2% of respondents observed MEs weekly, while 19.6% encountered these errors daily. The common types of errors included prescribing errors (71%), dispensing errors (69%), wrong dosages (63%), and wrong timing (61%). Notably, 37% of nursing leaders perceived underreporting of MEs. Identified barriers to MEs reporting included extra time for documentation (47%), fear of blame (45%), lack of knowledge (47%), absence of anonymous reporting systems (33%), and inadequate information for reporting errors (31%). A significant proportion of respondents (86%) emphasized the need for more comprehensive training to improve ME reporting practices. Conclusions: This survey highlighted the need for transformative changes in ME awareness and reporting in hospitals. Establishing blame-free, anonymous reporting systems and enhancing training are essential. Additionally, advanced technological solutions should be utilized to support nursing staff in improving patient safety via prevention of MEs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eswarappa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: