Cited by 10Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsInfection Control in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Protocol Violations during Medication Administration in Pediatrics

Alper, Samuel J., Karsh, Ben-Tzion, Holden, Richard J., Scanlon, Matthew C., Patel, Neal, Kaushal, Rainu·2006·Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Abstract

The paper uses a new measure of protocol violations to explore the extent of violations in the medication administration process. 203 nurses in three units of a free-standing pediatric hospital were provided with a survey assessing violations in the medication administration process; 120 nurses responded for a response rate of 59%. Violation data were collected for three stages of the medication administration process: matching medications to the medication administration record, checking patient identification, and documenting administration. The percentage of nurses who reported violating protocol in the medication administration process ranged from 8.4% to 30.2% in routine situations, and from 32.2% to 53.0% in emergency situations. Violations in the medication administration process may lead to medication errors. To improve medication safety, efforts should be taken to discover the system deficiencies that produce such frequent violations. System redesign should then address these deficiencies.

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 · 10.1177/154193120605001004

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alper, S. J., Karsh, B.-T., Holden, R. J., Scanlon, M. C., Patel, N., & Kaushal, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2006-10
Volume
50
Issue
10
Pages
1019-1023
ISSN
  • 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
  • 1071-1813
  • 2169-5067
OpenAlex
W1978073738
Cited by
10
References
18
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
protocol violations, medication administration, pediatric nursing, medication errors, drug safety, patient identification verification, medication administration records, documentation errors, emergency situations, system redesign

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