Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk of prescribing errors in acutely admitted patients: a pilot study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Prescribing errors in emergency settings occur frequently. Knowing which patients have the highest risk of errors could improve patient outcomes. Objective The aim of this study was to test an algorithm designed to assess prescribing error risk in individual patients, and to test the feasibility of medication reviews in high-risk patients. Setting The study was performed at the Acute Admissions Unit at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. Methods The study was an interventional pilot study. Patients included were assessed according to risk of prescribing errors with the aid of an algorithm called ‘Medication Risk Score’ (MERIS). Based on the score, high-risk patients were offered a medication review. The clinical relevance of the medication reviews was assessed retrospectively. Main outcome measure The number and nature of prescribing errors during the patients’ hospitalisation. Results The study included 103 patients, all of whom could be risk assessed with the algorithm MERIS. MERIS stratified 38 patients as high-risk patients and 65 as low-risk patients. The 103 patients were prescribed a total of 848 drugs in which 88 prescribing errors were found (10.4 %). Sixty-two of these were found in patients in the high-risk group. In general, the medication reviews were found to be clinically relevant and approximately 50 % of recommendations were implemented. Conclusion MERIS was found to be applicable in a clinical setting and stratified most patients with prescribing errors into the high-risk group. The medication reviews were feasible and found to be clinically relevant by most raters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nielsen TR, Andersen SE, Rasmussen M, Honore PH. Clinical pharmacist service in the acute ward. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(6):1137–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Basey AJ, Krska J, Kennedy TD, Mackridge AJ. Prescribing errors on admission to hospital and their potential impact: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(1):17–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tully MP. Prescribing errors in hospital practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(4):668–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, Raynor DK. Medication reviews. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(4):573–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Toss H, et al. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):894–900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lisby M, Thomsen A, Nielsen LP, Lyhne NM, Breum-Leer C, Fredberg U, et al. The effect of systematic medication review in elderly patients admitted to an acute ward of internal medicine. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106(5):422–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hellstrom LM, Bondesson A, Hoglund P, Midlov P, Holmdahl L, Rickhag E, et al. Impact of the lund integrated medicines management (LIMM) model on medication appropriateness and drug-related hospital revisits. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(7):741–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bondesson A, Eriksson T, Kragh A, Holmdahl L, Midlov P, Hoglund P. In-hospital medication reviews reduce unidentified drug-related problems. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(3):647–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6):359–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sakuma M, Bates DW, Morimoto T. Clinical prediction rule to identify high-risk inpatients for adverse drug events: the JADE study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(11):1221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Onder G, Petrovic M, Tangiisuran B, Meinardi MC, Markito-Notenboom WP, Somers A, et al. Development and validation of a score to assess risk of adverse drug reactions among in-hospital patients 65 years or older the GerontoNet ADR risk score. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1142–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Du W, Lehr VT, Lieh-Lai M, Koo W, Ward RM, Rieder MJ, et al. An algorithm to detect adverse drug reactions in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53(1):87–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Trivalle C, Burlaud A, Ducimetiere P, IMEPAG Grp. Risk factors for adverse drug events in hospitalized elderly patients: a geriatric score. Eur Geriatr Med. 2011;2(5):284–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hohl CM, Yu E, Hunte GS, Brubacher JR, Hosseini F, Argent CP, et al. Clinical decision rules to improve the detection of adverse drug events in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(6):640–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Falconer N, Nand S, Liow D, Jackson A, Seddon M. Development of an electronic patient prioritization tool for clinical pharmacist interventions. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(4):311–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saedder EA, Lisby M, Nielsen LP, Rungby J, Andersen LV, Bonnerup DK, et al. Detection of patients at high risk of medication errors: development and validation of an algorithm. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016;118(2):143–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Saedder EA, Brock B, Nielsen LP, Bonnerup DK, Lisby M. Identifying high-risk medication: a systematic literature review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(6):637–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saedder EA, Lisby M, Nielsen LP, Bonnerup DK, Brock B. Number of drugs most frequently found to be independent risk factors for serious adverse reactions: a systematic literature review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80(4):808–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lisby M, Nielsen LP, Brock B, Mainz J. How should medication errors be defined? development and test of a definition. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(2):203–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Graabæk T, Bonnerup DK, Kjeldsen LJ, Rossing C, Pottegård A. Pharmacist-led medication review in an acute admissions unit: a systematic procedure description. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2015;22:202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mogensen CB, Thisted AR, Olsen I. Medication problems are frequent and often serious in a Danish emergency department and may be discovered by clinical pharmacists. Dan Med J. 2012;59(11):A4532.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(1):6–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Frazier SC. Health outcomes and polypharmacy in elderly individuals: an integrated literature review. J Gerontol Nurs. 2005;31(9):4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beers MH, Ouslander JG. Risk factors in geriatric drug prescribing: a practical guide to avoiding problems. Drugs. 1989;37(1):105–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Higashi T, Shekelle PG, Solomon DH, Knight EL, Roth C, Chang JT, et al. The quality of pharmacologic care for vulnerable older patients. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):714–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bonnerup DK, Lisby M, Eskildsen AG, Saedder EA, Nielsen LP. Medication counselling: physicians’ perspective. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;113(6):425–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Larsen MD, Rosholm JU, Hallas J. The influence of comprehensive geriatric assessment on drug therapy in elderly patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(2):233–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hatoum HT, Hutchinson RA, Witte KW, Newby GP. Evaluation of the contribution of clinical pharmacists: inpatient care and cost reduction. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1988;22(3):252–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bondesson A, Holmdahl L, Midlov P, Hoglund P, Andersson E, Eriksson T. Acceptance and importance of clinical pharmacists’ LIMM-based recommendations. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(2):272–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Overhage JM, Lukes A. Practical, reliable, comprehensive method for characterizing pharmacists’ clinical activities. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56(23):2444–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bosma L, Jansman FGA, Franken AM, Harting JW, Van Den Bemt PMLA. Evaluation of pharmacist clinical interventions in a Dutch hospital setting. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(1):31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Buurma H, De Smet PA, Leufkens HG, Egberts AC. Evaluation of the clinical value of pharmacists’ modifications of prescription errors. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58(5):503–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Dale MA, Copeland R, Barton R. Prescribing errors on medical wards and the impact of clinical pharmacists. Int J Pharm Pract. 2003;11(1):19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None of the authors have received funding for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Pharmacy, Central Denmark Region, Skovlyvej 1, 8930, Randers NØ, Denmark

    Dorthe Krogsgaard Bonnerup, Charlotte Arp Sørensen & Anette Gjetrup Eskildsen

  2. Research Centre for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Marianne Lisby

  3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Eva Aggerholm Sædder, Birgitte Brock, Ljubica Andersen & Lars Peter Nielsen

Authors
  1. Dorthe Krogsgaard Bonnerup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marianne Lisby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Aggerholm Sædder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charlotte Arp Sørensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Birgitte Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ljubica Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anette Gjetrup Eskildsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lars Peter Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorthe Krogsgaard Bonnerup.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors declare competing interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonnerup, D.K., Lisby, M., Sædder, E.A. et al. Risk of prescribing errors in acutely admitted patients: a pilot study. Int J Clin Pharm 38, 1157–1163 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0345-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0345-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation