Association between workarounds and medication administration errors in bar-code-assisted medication administration in hospitals
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To study the association of workarounds with medication administration errors using barcode-assisted medication administration (BCMA), and to determine the frequency and types of workarounds and medication administration errors. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study in Dutch hospitals using BCMA to administer medication. Direct observation was used to collect data. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of medication administrations with one or more medication administration errors. Secondary outcome was the frequency and types of workarounds and medication administration errors. Univariate and multivariate multilevel logistic regression analysis were used to assess the association between workarounds and medication administration errors. Descriptive statistics were used for the secondary outcomes. Results: We included 5793 medication administrations for 1230 inpatients. Workarounds were associated with medication administration errors (adjusted odds ratio 3.06 [95% CI: 2.49-3.78]). Most commonly, procedural workarounds were observed, such as not scanning at all (36%), not scanning patients because they did not wear a wristband (28%), incorrect medication scanning, multiple medication scanning, and ignoring alert signals (11%). Common types of medication administration errors were omissions (78%), administration of non-ordered drugs (8.0%), and wrong doses given (6.0%). Discussion: Workarounds are associated with medication administration errors in hospitals using BCMA. These data suggest that BCMA needs more post-implementation evaluation if it is to achieve the intended benefits for medication safety. Conclusion: In hospitals using barcode-assisted medication administration, workarounds occurred in 66% of medication administrations and were associated with large numbers of medication administration errors.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The larger issue in medication administration is commonly the way that multiple different devices are used together, the consistency between user interfaces, and the ways they support or disrupt clinical practices in medications management.
“the larger issue is commonly the way that multiple different devices are used together, the consistency between user interfaces, and the ways they support or disrupt clinical practices in medications management”
From HCI for health and wellbeing: Challenges and opportunities (2019) · cites this paper as van der Veen et al, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 64
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Cristoph LH, Sande van der JP. Gedragsobservatie. Systematisch Observe- ren. 1st ed. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff; 1999.
- Authors
- van der Veen, W., van den Bemt, P. M., Wouters, H., Bates, D. W., Twisk, J. W., de Gier, J. J., Taxis, K., for the BCMA Study Group, Duyvendak, M., Luttikhuis, K. O., Ros, J. J., Vasbinder, E. C., Atrafi, M., Brasse, B., & Mangelaars, I.
- Affiliations
- Faculty of Science and Engineering, Department of PharmacoTherapy, PharmacoEpidemiology and PharmaEconomics, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
- Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Gelre Hospitals (NL)
- Groene Hart Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Elkerliek Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-08-22
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 385-392
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC7646849
- OpenAlex
- W2768182021
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 9.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Keywords
- workarounds, medication administration errors, drug safety, medication omission, post-implementation evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Electronic Data Processing, Hospitalization, Humans, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, Netherlands, Prospective Studies, Medical Order Entry Systems
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