The incidence, prevalence and contributing factors associated with the occurrence of medication errors for children and adults in the community setting: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Medication delivery is a complex process which provides numerous opportunities for error occurrence. While the community environment presents a unique potential for medication errors, to date, an exploration of these errors had not been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The overall objective of the review was to identify the incidence, prevalence and contributing factors associated with the occurrence of medication errors for children and adults in the community setting. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies involving children and adults from the community setting.In this review we considered studies that evaluate the incidence, prevalence and contributing factors associated with the occurrence of medication errors in the community setting for both children and adults.In this review we considered any randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, other designs such as cohort, case control studies and descriptive studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: Papers in English between the years 1990-2011 were searched in various scholarly databases, including: CINAHL, Medline, Mosby's Nursing Consult, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Full papers were assessed for methodological quality independently by two reviewers using critical appraisal checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute. DATA COLLECTION: Details of each study included in the review were extracted using an adaptation of the standardised data extraction forms developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis was not possible due to methodological and statistical heterogeneity of the included studies. Hence study findings are presented in narrative form. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the final review. Thirteen studies examined either incidence or prevalence. Ten studies identified contributing factors and five studies reported the frequency of errors. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first systematic review of medication error occurrence for children and adults in the community. Evidence emerging for this review highlighted the incomparability within the included studies and current research and thus the inability to make recommendations to advance the science. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Commonly reported causal factors were dosing errors, misreading prescriptions and calculation errors. Therefore, it is recommended that adequate education is provided to ensure that healthcare providers are well equipped to perform the tasks involved in medication delivery. Further recommendations include: 1) ensure workloads within the community setting support safe and reasonable assignments; 2) reinforce communication protocols between healthcare providers and patients regarding medication delivery; and 3) separate and identify look alike and sound alike medications. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: For the science in this area to advance, there is a need for standardization on how outcomes are identified and measured within each stage. Therefore, it is recommended that common conceptualizations for these terms be established or agreed upon and a valid tracking system is in place in the community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,033 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».