Cited by 306Emergency and Acute Care StudiesPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

ED overcrowding is associated with an increased frequency of medication errors

Kulstad, Erik B., Sikka, Rishi, Sweis, Rolla T., Kelley, Ken M., Rzechula, Kathleen H.·2010·The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Objectives Despite the growing problems of emergency department (ED) crowding, the potential impact on the frequency of medication errors occurring in the ED is uncertain. Using a metric to measure ED crowding in real time (the Emergency Department Work Index, or EDWIN, score), we sought to prospectively measure the correlation between the degree of crowding and the frequency of medication errors occurring in our ED as detected by our ED pharmacists.Methods We performed a prospective, observational study in a large, community hospital ED of all patients whose medication orders were evaluated by our ED pharmacists for a 3-month period. Our ED pharmacists review the orders of all patients in the ED critical care section and the Chest Pain unit, and all admitted patients boarding in the ED. We measured the Spearman correlation between average daily EDWIN score and number of medication errors detected and determined the score's predictive performance with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.Results A total of 283 medication errors were identified by the ED pharmacists over the study period. Errors included giving medications at incorrect doses, frequencies, durations, or routes and giving contraindicated medications. Error frequency showed a positive correlation with daily average EDWIN score (Spearman's rho = 0.33; P = .001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.78) with failure defined as greater than 1 medication error per day.Conclusions We identified an increased frequency of medication errors in our ED with increased crowding as measured with a real-time modified EDWIN score.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajem.2008.12.014

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kulstad, E. B., Sikka, R., Sweis, R. T., Kelley, K. M., & Rzechula, K. H.
Affiliations
Advocate Christ Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Kulstad, Erik B.
Venue
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
304-309
ISSN
0735-6757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065846709
Cited by
306
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
emergency department overcrowding, medication errors, medication order review, contraindicated medications, dosing errors
MeSH terms
Crowding, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Medication Errors, Pharmacy Service, Hospital, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review