Unprevented or prevented dispensing incidents: which outcome to use in dispensing error research?
- 14 January 2011
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Pharmacy Practice
- Vol. 19 (1), 36-50
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.2010.00071.x
Abstract
Objectives To compare the rate, error type, causes and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents reported by Welsh National Health Service (NHS) hospital pharmacies. Methods Details of all unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents occurring over 3 months (September–December 2005) at five district general hospitals across Wales were reported and analysed using a validated method. Rates of unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents were compared using Mann–Whitney U test. Reported error types, contributory factors and clinical significance of unprevented and prevented incidents were compared using Fisher's exact test. Key findings Thirty-five unprevented and 291 prevented dispensing incidents were reported amongst 221 670 items. The rate of unprevented (16/100 000 items) and prevented dispensing incidents (131/100 000 items; P = 0.04) was significantly different. There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving the wrong directions/warnings on the label (prevented, n = 100, 29%; unprevented, n = 4, 10%; P = 0.02) and the wrong drug details on the label (prevented, n = 15, 4%; unprevented, n = 6, 14%; P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in the proportions of prevented and unprevented dispensing incidents involving supply of the wrong strength (prevented, n = 46, 14%; unprevented, n = 2, 5%; P = 0.02) and issue of expired medicines (prevented, n = 3, 1%; unprevented, n = 5, 12%; P = 0.002). Conclusion The use of prevented dispensing incidents as a surrogate marker for unprevented incidents is questionable. There were significant differences between unprevented and prevented dispensing incidents in terms of rate and error types. This is consistent with the medication error iceberg. Care must be exercised when extrapolating prevented dispensing incident data on error types to unprevented dispensing incidents.This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Incidence, type and causes of dispensing errors: a review of the literatureInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 2009
- Development and use of the critical incident technique in evaluating causes of dispensing incidentsInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 2008
- A study of unprevented dispensing incidents in Welsh NHS hospitalsInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 2008
- An evaluation of two automated dispensing machines in UK hospital pharmacyInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 2008
- The Frequency and Potential Causes of Dispensing Errors in a Hospital PharmacyInternational Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 2005
- Prospective study of the incidence, nature and causes of dispensing errors in community pharmaciesPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2005
- A Feasibility Study for Recording of Dispensing Errors and ???Near Misses??? in Four UK Primary Care PharmaciesDrug Safety, 2003
- Medication Dispensing Errors in Community Pharmacies: A Nationwide StudyProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2002
- An analysis of dispensing errors in NHS hospitalsInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 2002
- A multicentre study of dispensing errors in British hospitalsInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 1993