Prevalence of medication administration errors in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis up to 2017 to explore sources of heterogeneity

dc.contributor.authorAzar, Christine
dc.contributor.authorRaffoul, Paul
dc.contributor.authorRizk, Rana G.
dc.contributor.authorBoutros, Celina F.
dc.contributor.authorSaleh, Nadine G.
dc.contributor.authorMaison, Patrick F.
dc.contributor.departmentPediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:11:22Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:11:22Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractPrevious estimates to meta-analyze administration error rates were limited by the high statistical heterogeneity, restricting their use. This study aimed to investigate sources of heterogeneity in pooled administration error rates in hospitalized adults. We systematically searched scientific databases up to November 2017 for studies presenting error rates/relevant numerical data in hospitalized adults. We conducted separate meta-analyses for the numerators: One Medication Error (OME) (each dose can be correct or incorrect) and Total Number of Errors (TNE) (more than one error per dose could be counted), using the generic inverse variance with a 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and Cochran's Q test. We meta-analyzed 33 studies. The global pooled analyses based on the OME and TNE numerators showed very high heterogeneity (I2 = 100%; p < 0.00001). For each meta-analysis, subgroup analyses based on study characteristics (countries, wards, population, routes of administration, error detection methods, and medications) yielded results with consistently elevated heterogeneity. Beyond these characteristics, we stratified the studies according to the mean error prevalence level as the threshold. Based on the OME numerator, we identified two subgroups of low (0.15[0.13–0.17]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.43) and high (0.26[0.24–0.27]; I2 = 38%; p = 0.17) pooled prevalence rates, with controlled heterogeneity. Similarly, for the TNE numerator, we identified two subgroups of low (0.10[0.09–0.10]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.76) and high (0.28[0.27–0.29]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.89) pooled prevalence rates, with controlled heterogeneity. These subgroups differed regarding the denominators used: Total opportunities for errors versus others (doses, observations, administrations). Calculation methods, specifically the denominator, seem a primary factor in explaining heterogeneity in error rates. Standardizing numerators, denominators, and definitions is necessary. © 2023 The Authors. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/fcp.12873
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85148364409
dc.identifier.pmid36691676
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/32550
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherJohn Wiley and Sons Inc
dc.relation.ispartofFundamental and Clinical Pharmacology
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAdults
dc.subjectHospital
dc.subjectMedication administration error
dc.subjectMedication errors
dc.subjectMeta-analysis
dc.subjectStatistical heterogeneity
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectPrevalence
dc.subjectCalculation
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMedication error
dc.subjectMeta analysis
dc.subjectReview
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.titlePrevalence of medication administration errors in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis up to 2017 to explore sources of heterogeneity
dc.typeReview

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2023-1185.pdf
Size:
1.56 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format