...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Safety in health. >A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
【24h】

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

机译：两种评估药物错误潜在临床重要性的方法的比较

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BackgroundA 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsUsing 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 =? ConclusionScores 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.
机译：背景技术已经使用了各种各样的方法来评估用药错误的潜在临床重要性，但是目前尚不清楚应使用哪种方法，也不清楚如何比较。在本文中，我们比较了两种评估方法，即使用在英国医院进行静脉输液管理中发现的错误数据集，为以后的研究之间的比较提供依据。方法我们使用两种常用方法评估了在静脉输液给药研究中发现的155个错误中的每一个：美国药物错误报告和预防国家协调委员会（NCC MERP）方法的改编形式（由当地临床医生评分的序数表）和院长和理发师方法（一组专家在0至10的区间范围内评分）。我们使用散点图比较了两组得分，并计算了Spearman的相关系数。结果使用NCC MERP方法，将137个（88％）错误定为C级（``发生错误，但即使到达患者也不会造成伤害''），将17个（11％）错误定为D级（``可能会导致错误需要加强监控”）和1（1％）的额定E（“发生可能会造成暂时伤害的错误”）。在Dean和Barber量表上，误差范围从0到4.75，平均为1.7。 138个错误（89％）被认为是次要错误（得分小于3），而17个错误（11％）被认为是中等错误（得分3-7）。两种方法的得分显着相关，但相关性很弱（相关系数= 0.36，p =？结论）调整后的NCC MERP和Dean and Barber方法的得分在药物管理错误评估中仅弱相关。作为评估错误的临床重要性的标准方法，研究人员应意识到，研究之间的比较可能会受到限制。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号