Key result
Direct observation detected a higher rate of perioperative medication-related incidents compared to self-reporting (5.3% vs 0.004%), with self-reported incidents having higher severity (P<0.001).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate perioperative medication errors and adverse medication events identified by self-report versus direct observation, and to compare incident types and severity.
Does direct observation compared to self-report identify different rates, types, and severities of perioperative medication-related incidents?
Observational
No
Does direct observation compared to self-report identify different rates, types, and severities of perioperative medication-related incidents?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.3% vs 0.004%
Direct observation captures significantly more perioperative medication errors than self-reporting, though self-reporting tends to capture more severe incidents.
Direct observation detects more perioperative medication incidents than self-report; leaves open optimal reporting methods for safety monitoring.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative medication-related incidents (medication errors (MEs) and/or adverse medication events (AMEs)) identified by 2 different reporting methods (self-report and direct observation), and to compare the types and severity of incidents identified by each method. We compared perioperative medication-related incidents identified by direct observation in Nanji et al's 2016 study[1] to those identified by self-report via a facilitated incident reporting system at the same 1046-bed tertiary care academic medical center during the same 8-month period. Incidents, including MEs and AMEs were classified by type and severity. In 277 operations involving 3671 medication administrations, 193 MEs and/or AMEs were observed (5.3% incident rate). While none of the observed incidents were self-reported, 10 separate medication-related incidents were self-reported from different (unobserved) operations that occurred during the same time period, which involved a total of 21,576 operations and approximately 280,488 medication administrations (0.004% self-reported incident rate). The distribution of incidents (ME, AME, or both) did not differ by direct observation versus self-report methodology. The types of MEs identified by direct observation differed from those identified by self-report (P = .005). Specifically, the most frequent types of MEs identified by direct observation were labeling errors (N = 37; 24.2%), wrong dose errors (N = 35; 22.9%) and errors of omission (N = 27; 17.6%). The most frequent types of MEs identified by self-report were wrong dose (N = 5; 50%) and wrong medication (N = 4; 40%). The severity of incidents identified by direct observation and self-report differed, with self-reported incidents having a higher average severity (P < .001). The procedure types associated with medication-related incidents did not differ by direct observation versus self-report methodology. Direct observation captured many more perioperative medication-related incidents than self-report. The ME types identified and their severity differed between the 2 methods, with a higher average incident severity in the self-reported data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stipp et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Perioperative medication-related incidents. Direct observation vs. Self-report was evaluated on Perioperative medication-related incident rate. Direct observation detected a higher rate of perioperative medication-related incidents compared to self-reporting (5.3% vs 0.004%), with self-reported incidents having higher severity (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: