Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors

Open access
Taxis, Katja, Barber, Nick·2003·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the incidence and clinical importance of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs and the stages of the process in which errors occur. Design: Prospective ethnographic study using disguised observation. Participants: Nurses who prepared and administered intravenous drugs. Setting: 10 wards in a teaching and non-teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Number, type, and clinical importance of errors. Results: 249 errors were identified. At least one error occurred in 212 out of 430 intravenous drug doses (49%, 95% confidence interval 45% to 54%). Three doses (1%) had potentially severe errors, 126 (29%) potentially moderate errors, and 83 (19%) potentially minor errors. Most errors occurred when giving bolus doses or making up drugs that required multiple step preparation. Conclusions: The rate of intravenous drug errors was high. Although most errors would cause only short term adverse effects, a few could have been serious. A combination of reducing the amount of preparation on the ward, training, and technology to administer slow bolus doses would probably have the greatest effect on error rates. What is already known on this topic: Errors in preparing and administering intravenous drugs can cause considerable harm to patients Reduction of drug errors is a government health target in the United Kingdom and the United States What this study adds: Errors occurred in about half of the intravenous drug doses observed Errors were potentially harmful in about a third of cases The most common errors were giving bolus doses too quickly and mistakes in preparing drugs that required multiple steps

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.326.7391.684

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Taxis, K., & Barber, N.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-03-29
Volume
326
Issue
7391
Pages
684
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2074527831
Cited by
373
References
14
FWCI
34.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.326.7391.684
The paper
Taxis, K., & Barber, N. (2003). Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7391.684

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.