Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

View through CrossRef
Abstract Background Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. PROSPERO: CRD42020164156. Results Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I2 = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I2 = 99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n = 12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n = 20, I2 = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I2 = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I2 = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I2 = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I2 = 99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the ‘central nervous system’ and ‘cardiovascular system’. Conclusions This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation’s push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.
Title: Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Description:
Abstract Background Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority.
But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown.
Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings.
Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm.
Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020.
Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers.
Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression.
Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.
PROSPERO: CRD42020164156.
Results Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included.
The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I2 = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I2 = 99.
5%) of all patient incidence records.
The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n = 12).
The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n = 20, I2 = 96.
4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I2 = 93.
6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I2 = 97%).
The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I2 = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I2 = 99%) stages of medication use.
Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the ‘central nervous system’ and ‘cardiovascular system’.
Conclusions This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm.
We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening.
Our results support the World Health Organisation’s push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.

Related Results

NICU Medication Errors: Describing the Cause and Nature of Medication Errors in a NICU in Qatar
NICU Medication Errors: Describing the Cause and Nature of Medication Errors in a NICU in Qatar
IntroductionA medication error can be defined as “any error occurring in the medication use process” and focuses on problems with the delivery of medication to a patient [1]. Medic...
Patient harm from cardiovascular medications
Patient harm from cardiovascular medications
Background Medication harm can lead to hospital admission, prolonged hospital stay and poor patient outcomes. Reducing medication harm is a priority for healthc...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Use of Personal Protective Equipment in General Practice and Ambulance settings: a rapid review
Use of Personal Protective Equipment in General Practice and Ambulance settings: a rapid review
Abstract The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a cornerstone of infection prevention and control guidelines and was of increased importance during the C...
Exploring Medication Error Causality and Reporting: A Cross Sectional Survey of Hamad Medical Corporation Health Professionals
Exploring Medication Error Causality and Reporting: A Cross Sectional Survey of Hamad Medical Corporation Health Professionals
IntroductionMedication errors are a major global issue, adversely impacting patient safety and health outcomes. Promoting patient safety through minimizing medication errors is the...
Unplanned Rehospitalisation due to Medication Harm following an Acute Myocardial Infarction
Unplanned Rehospitalisation due to Medication Harm following an Acute Myocardial Infarction
<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The contribution of medication harm to rehospitalisation and adverse patient outcomes after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI)...
A Scoping Review: Self-harm pada Remaja
A Scoping Review: Self-harm pada Remaja
Abstract. Adolescents are seen as an age group that is vulnerable to self-harm. In recent years, cases of self-harm have increased. Exposure to physical, emotional, social changes ...
Abstract 2233: Biobehavioral Factors and Heart Failure Medication Adherence
Abstract 2233: Biobehavioral Factors and Heart Failure Medication Adherence
Background: Medication adherence in heart failure (HF) patients reduces hospitalizations and improves outcomes, yet it is variable. This study evaluated adherence rates...

Back to Top