Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences

被引:26
作者
Schwappach, D. L. B. [1 ,2 ]
Pfeiffer, Yvonne [1 ]
Taxis, Katja [3 ]
机构
[1] Swiss Patient Safety Fdn, Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Univ Bern, ISPM, Bern, Switzerland
[3] Univ Groningen, Dept Pharm, Unit Pharmacotherapy & Pharmaceut Care, Groningen, Netherlands
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2016年 / 6卷 / 06期
关键词
ONCOLOGY; patient safety; ERRORS; SAFETY; INTERRUPTIONS; MEDICINES; CHILDREN; QUALITY; CANCER;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011394
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. Objective To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. Methods In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. Results Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checkingmore frequently than carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. Conclusions Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] Alsulami Z, J ADV NURS
  • [2] Alsulami Z, 2012, ARCH DIS CHILD, V97, P833, DOI [10.1136/archdischild-2011-301093, 10.1136/archdischild-2012-301728.3]
  • [3] Double checking medicines: defence against error or contributory factor?
    Armitage, Gerry
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2008, 14 (04) : 513 - 519
  • [4] Conroy S., 2007, PAEDIATR PERINAT DRU, V8, P18
  • [5] David BA, 2008, ADV PATIENT SAFETY N
  • [6] Paediatric nurses' understanding of the process and procedure of double-checking medications
    Dickinson, Annette
    McCall, Elaine
    Twomey, Bernadette
    James, Natalie
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2010, 19 (5-6) : 728 - 735
  • [7] Dinning Connie, 2005, J Pediatr Oncol Nurs, V22, P20, DOI 10.1177/1043454204272530
  • [8] Study of Medication Errors on a Community Hospital Oncology Ward
    Ford, Clyde D.
    Killebrew, Julie
    Fugitt, Penelope
    Jacobsen, Janet
    Prystas, Elizabeth M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, 2006, 2 (04) : 149 - 154
  • [9] A continuous-improvement approach for reducing the number of chemotherapy-related medication errors
    Goldspiel, BR
    DeChristoforo, R
    Daniels, CE
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 2000, 57 (24) : S4 - S9
  • [10] Double checking: a second look
    Hewitt, Tanya
    Chreim, Samia
    Forster, Alan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2016, 22 (02) : 267 - 274