A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors

Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of i...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Fahmy, Sandra [verfasserIn] Garfield, Sara Furniss, Dominic Blandford, Ann Franklin, Bryony Dean

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Medication errors Medication administration errors Hospital Methodology

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2018

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Safety in health - London : BioMed Central, 2015, 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:4 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; day:09 ; month:03

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3

Katalog-ID:	SPR037968351

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR037968351
003	DE-627
005	20230519145239.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR037968351
035			\|a (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Fahmy, Sandra \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2018
520			\|a Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations.
650		4	\|a Medication errors \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Medication administration errors \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Hospital \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Methodology \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Garfield, Sara \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Furniss, Dominic \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Blandford, Ann \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Franklin, Bryony Dean \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245 \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Safety in health \|d London : BioMed Central, 2015 \|g 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März \|w (DE-627)835590216 \|w (DE-600)2834882-5 \|x 2056-5917 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:4 \|g year:2018 \|g number:1 \|g day:09 \|g month:03
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 4 \|j 2018 \|e 1 \|b 09 \|c 03

Indexfelder

author_variant	s f sf s g sg d f df a b ab b d f bd bdf
matchkey_str	article:20565917:2018----::cmaiootoehdoassighptnillnclmot
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037968351 (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fahmy, Sandra verfasserin aut A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. Medication errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication administration errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hospital (dpeaa)DE-He213 Methodology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Garfield, Sara aut Furniss, Dominic aut Blandford, Ann aut Franklin, Bryony Dean (orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245 aut Enthalten in Safety in health London : BioMed Central, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März (DE-627)835590216 (DE-600)2834882-5 2056-5917 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 09 03
spelling	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037968351 (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fahmy, Sandra verfasserin aut A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. Medication errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication administration errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hospital (dpeaa)DE-He213 Methodology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Garfield, Sara aut Furniss, Dominic aut Blandford, Ann aut Franklin, Bryony Dean (orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245 aut Enthalten in Safety in health London : BioMed Central, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März (DE-627)835590216 (DE-600)2834882-5 2056-5917 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 09 03
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037968351 (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fahmy, Sandra verfasserin aut A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. Medication errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication administration errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hospital (dpeaa)DE-He213 Methodology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Garfield, Sara aut Furniss, Dominic aut Blandford, Ann aut Franklin, Bryony Dean (orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245 aut Enthalten in Safety in health London : BioMed Central, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März (DE-627)835590216 (DE-600)2834882-5 2056-5917 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 09 03
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037968351 (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fahmy, Sandra verfasserin aut A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. Medication errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication administration errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hospital (dpeaa)DE-He213 Methodology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Garfield, Sara aut Furniss, Dominic aut Blandford, Ann aut Franklin, Bryony Dean (orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245 aut Enthalten in Safety in health London : BioMed Central, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März (DE-627)835590216 (DE-600)2834882-5 2056-5917 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 09 03
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 doi (DE-627)SPR037968351 (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Fahmy, Sandra verfasserin aut A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2018 Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. Medication errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication administration errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hospital (dpeaa)DE-He213 Methodology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Garfield, Sara aut Furniss, Dominic aut Blandford, Ann aut Franklin, Bryony Dean (orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245 aut Enthalten in Safety in health London : BioMed Central, 2015 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März (DE-627)835590216 (DE-600)2834882-5 2056-5917 nnns volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2018 1 09 03
language	English
source	Enthalten in Safety in health 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03
sourceStr	Enthalten in Safety in health 4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März volume:4 year:2018 number:1 day:09 month:03
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Medication errors Medication administration errors Hospital Methodology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Safety in health
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Fahmy, Sandra @@aut@@ Garfield, Sara @@aut@@ Furniss, Dominic @@aut@@ Blandford, Ann @@aut@@ Franklin, Bryony Dean @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-03-09T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	835590216
id	SPR037968351
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR037968351</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519145239.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR037968351</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fahmy, Sandra</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medication errors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medication administration errors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hospital</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Methodology</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Garfield, Sara</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Furniss, Dominic</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Blandford, Ann</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Franklin, Bryony Dean</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Safety in health</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)835590216</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2834882-5</subfield><subfield code="x">2056-5917</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:09</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">09</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Fahmy, Sandra
spellingShingle	Fahmy, Sandra misc Medication errors misc Medication administration errors misc Hospital misc Methodology A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
authorStr	Fahmy, Sandra
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)835590216
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2056-5917
topic_title	A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors Medication errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Medication administration errors (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hospital (dpeaa)DE-He213 Methodology (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Medication errors misc Medication administration errors misc Hospital misc Methodology
topic_unstemmed	misc Medication errors misc Medication administration errors misc Hospital misc Methodology
topic_browse	misc Medication errors misc Medication administration errors misc Hospital misc Methodology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Safety in health
hierarchy_parent_id	835590216
hierarchy_top_title	Safety in health
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)835590216 (DE-600)2834882-5
title	A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR037968351 (SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e
title_full	A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
author_sort	Fahmy, Sandra
journal	Safety in health
journalStr	Safety in health
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Fahmy, Sandra Garfield, Sara Furniss, Dominic Blandford, Ann Franklin, Bryony Dean
container_volume	4
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Fahmy, Sandra
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-2892-1245
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245
title_sort	comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
title_auth	A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
abstract	Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. © The Author(s). 2018
abstractGer	Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. © The Author(s). 2018
abstract_unstemmed	Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations. © The Author(s). 2018
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3
remote_bool	true
author2	Garfield, Sara Furniss, Dominic Blandford, Ann Franklin, Bryony Dean
author2Str	Garfield, Sara Furniss, Dominic Blandford, Ann Franklin, Bryony Dean
ppnlink	835590216
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3
up_date	2024-07-03T15:27:22.575Z
_version_	1803572155590377472
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR037968351</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519145239.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR037968351</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40886-018-0071-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fahmy, Sandra</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. Methods We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Results Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). Conclusion Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medication errors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Medication administration errors</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hospital</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Methodology</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Garfield, Sara</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Furniss, Dominic</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Blandford, Ann</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Franklin, Bryony Dean</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-2892-1245</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Safety in health</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2018), 1 vom: 09. März</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)835590216</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2834882-5</subfield><subfield code="x">2056-5917</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:09</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40886-018-0071-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">09</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399255

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?