↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effects of sharing information on drug administration errors in pediatric wards: a pre–post intervention study

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Effects of sharing information on drug administration errors in pediatric wards: a pre–post intervention study
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s128504
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siew-Siang Chua, Sim-Mei Choo, Che Zuraini Sulaiman, Asma Omar, Meow-Keong Thong

Abstract

Drug administration errors are more likely to reach the patient than other medication errors. The main aim of this study was to determine whether the sharing of information on drug administration errors among health care providers would reduce such problems. This study involved direct, undisguised observations of drug administrations in two pediatric wards of a major teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This study consisted of two phases: Phase 1 (pre-intervention) and Phase 2 (post-intervention). Data were collected by two observers over a 40-day period in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the study. Both observers were pharmacy graduates: Observer 1 just completed her undergraduate pharmacy degree, whereas Observer 2 was doing her one-year internship as a provisionally registered pharmacist in the hospital under study. A drug administration error was defined as a discrepancy between the drug regimen received by the patient and that intended by the prescriber and also drug administration procedures that did not follow standard hospital policies and procedures. Results from Phase 1 of the study were analyzed, presented and discussed with the ward staff before commencement of data collection in Phase 2. A total of 1,284 and 1,401 doses of drugs were administered in Phase 1 and Phase 2, respectively. The rate of drug administration errors reduced significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (44.3% versus 28.6%, respectively; P<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the adjusted odds of drug administration errors in Phase 1 of the study were almost three times that in Phase 2 (P<0.001). The most common types of errors were incorrect administration technique and incorrect drug preparation. Nasogastric and intravenous routes of drug administration contributed significantly to the rate of drug administration errors. This study showed that sharing of the types of errors that had occurred was significantly associated with a reduction in drug administration errors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Engineering 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,245,027
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#425
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,274
of 324,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.