6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Risk of Wrong-Patient Orders Among Multiple vs Singleton Births in the Neonatal Intensive Care Units of 2 Integrated Health Care Systems

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Is the risk of wrong-patient orders increased among multiple-birth infants compared with singleton-birth infants in the neonatal intensive care unit? In this cohort study of 1 536 160 orders placed for 10 819 infants in 6 neonatal intensive care units at 2 health care systems, the risk of wrong-patient orders was significantly higher among multiple-birth infants compared with singleton-birth infants. The excess risk among multiple-birth infants may have been owing to identification errors that occurred between siblings, with the greatest risk among sets of higher-order multiple-birth infants. Requirements for newborn identification may provide insufficient protection against wrong-patient errors among multiple-birth infants in neonatal intensive care units. Multiple-birth infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have nearly identical patient identifiers and may be at greater risk of wrong-patient order errors compared with singleton-birth infants. To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders among multiple-birth infants and singletons receiving care in the NICU and to examine the proportion of wrong-patient orders between multiple-birth infants and siblings (intrafamilial errors) and between multiple-birth infants and nonsiblings (extrafamilial errors). A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 6 NICUs of 2 large, integrated health care systems in New York City that used distinct temporary names for newborns per the requirements of The Joint Commission. Data were collected from 4 NICUs at New York–Presbyterian Hospital from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, and 2 NICUs at Montefiore Health System from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2015. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. All infants in the 6 NICUs for whom electronic orders were placed during the study periods were included. Wrong-patient electronic orders were identified using the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) Measure. This measure was used to detect RAR events, which are defined as 1 or more orders placed for a patient that are retracted (ie, canceled) by the same clinician within 10 minutes, then reordered by the same clinician for a different patient within the next 10 minutes. A total of 10 819 infants were included: 85.5% were singleton-birth infants and 14.5% were multiple-birth infants (male, 55.8%; female, 44.2%). The overall wrong-patient order rate was significantly higher among multiple-birth infants than among singleton-birth infants (66.0 vs 41.7 RAR events per 100 000 orders, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.20; P  < .001). The rate of extrafamilial RAR events among multiple-birth infants (36.1 per 100 000 orders) was similar to that of singleton-birth infants (41.7 per 100 000 orders). The excess risk among multiple-birth infants (29.9 per 100 000 orders) appears to be owing to intrafamilial RAR events. The risk increased as the number of siblings receiving care in the NICU increased; a wrong-patient order error occurred in 1 in 7 sets of twin births and in 1 in 3 sets of higher-order multiple births. This study suggests that multiple-birth status in the NICU is associated with significantly increased risk of wrong-patient orders compared with singleton-birth status. This excess risk appears to be owing to misidentification between siblings. These results suggest that a distinct naming convention as required by The Joint Commission may provide insufficient protection against identification errors among multiple-birth infants. Strategies to reduce this risk include using given names at birth, changing from temporary to given names when available, and encouraging parents to select names for multiple births before they are born when acceptable to families. This cohort study examines the risk of wrong-patient orders among multiple-birth vs singleton-birth infants receiving care in 6 neonatal intensive care units of 2 large, integrated health care systems in New York City.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients.

          Iatrogenic injuries, including medication errors, are an important problem in all hospitalized populations. However, few epidemiological data are available regarding medication errors in the pediatric inpatient setting. To assess the rates of medication errors, adverse drug events (ADEs), and potential ADEs; to compare pediatric rates with previously reported adult rates; to analyze the major types of errors; and to evaluate the potential impact of prevention strategies. Prospective cohort study of 1120 patients admitted to 2 academic institutions during 6 weeks in April and May of 1999. Medication errors, potential ADEs, and ADEs were identified by clinical staff reports and review of medication order sheets, medication administration records, and patient charts. We reviewed 10 778 medication orders and found 616 medication errors (5.7%), 115 potential ADEs (1.1%), and 26 ADEs (0.24%). Of the 26 ADEs, 5 (19%) were preventable. While the preventable ADE rate was similar to that of a previous adult hospital study, the potential ADE rate was 3 times higher. The rate of potential ADEs was significantly higher in neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit. Most potential ADEs occurred at the stage of drug ordering (79%) and involved incorrect dosing (34%), anti-infective drugs (28%), and intravenous medications (54%). Physician reviewers judged that computerized physician order entry could potentially have prevented 93% and ward-based clinical pharmacists 94% of potential ADEs. Medication errors are common in pediatric inpatient settings, and further efforts are needed to reduce them.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Voluntary anonymous reporting of medical errors for neonatal intensive care.

            Medical errors cause significant morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Specialty-based, voluntary reporting of medical errors by health care providers is an important strategy that may enhance patient safety. We developed a voluntary, anonymous, Internet-based reporting system for medical errors in neonatal intensive care, evaluated its feasibility, and identified errors that affect high-risk neonates and their families. Health professionals (n = 739) from 54 hospitals in the Vermont Oxford Network received access to a secure Internet site for anonymous reporting of errors, near-miss errors, and adverse events. Reports used free-text entry in phase 1 (17 months) and a structured form in phase 2 (10 months). The number and types of reported events and factors that contributed to the events were measured. Of 1230 reports--522 in phase 1 (17 months) and 708 in phase 2 (10 months)--the most frequent event categories were wrong medication, dose, schedule, or infusion rate (including nutritional agents and blood products; 47%); error in administration or method of using a treatment (14%); patient misidentification (11%); other system failure (9%); error or delay in diagnosis (7%); and error in the performance of an operation, procedure, or test (4%). The most frequent contributory factors were failure to follow policy or protocol (47%), inattention (27%), communications problem (22%), error in charting or documentation (13%), distraction (12%), inexperience (10%), labeling error (10%), and poor teamwork (9%). In 24 reports, family members assisted in discovery, contributed to the cause, or themselves were victims of the error. Serious patient harm was reported in 2% and minor harm in 25% of phase 2 events. Specialty-based, voluntary, anonymous Internet reporting by health care professionals identified a broad range of medical errors in neonatal intensive care and promoted multidisciplinary collaborative learning. Similar specialty-based systems have the potential to enhance patient safety in a variety of clinical settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance — United States, 2015

              Problem/Condition Since the first U.S. infant conceived with assisted reproductive technology (ART) was born in 1981, both the use of ART and the number of fertility clinics providing ART services have increased steadily in the United States. ART includes fertility treatments in which eggs or embryos are handled in the laboratory (i.e., in vitro fertilization [IVF] and related procedures). Although the majority of infants conceived through ART are singletons, women who undergo ART procedures are more likely than women who conceive naturally to deliver multiple-birth infants. Multiple births pose substantial risks for both mothers and infants, including obstetric complications, preterm delivery ( 37 years). Among women aged <35 years, the national elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) rate was 34.7% (range: 11.3% in Puerto Rico to 88.1% in Delaware). In 2015, ART contributed to 1.7% of all infants born in the United States (range: 0.3% in Puerto Rico to 4.5% in Massachusetts). ART also contributed to 17.0% of all multiple-birth infants, 16.8% of all twin infants, and 22.2% of all triplets and higher-order infants. The percentage of multiple-birth infants was higher among infants conceived with ART (35.3%) than among all infants born in the total birth population (3.4%). Approximately 34.0% of ART-conceived infants were twins and 1.0% were triplets and higher-order infants. Nationally, infants conceived with ART contributed to 5.1% of all low birthweight infants. Among ART-conceived infants, 25.5% had low birthweight, compared with 8.1% among all infants. ART-conceived infants contributed to 5.3% of all preterm (gestational age <37 weeks) infants. The percentage of preterm births was higher among infants conceived with ART (31.2%) than among all infants born in the total birth population (9.7%). Among singletons, the percentage of ART-conceived infants who had low birthweight was 8.7% compared with 6.4% among all infants born. The percentage of ART-conceived infants who were born preterm was 13.4% among singletons compared with 7.9% among all infants. Interpretation Multiple births from ART contributed to a substantial proportion of all twins, triplets, and higher-order infants born in the United States. For women aged <35 years, who are typically considered good candidates for eSET, the national average of 1.6 embryos was transferred per ART procedure. Of the four states (Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) with comprehensive mandated health insurance coverage for ART procedures (i.e., coverage for at least four cycles of IVF), three (Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) had rates of ART use exceeding 1.5 times the national rate. This type of mandated insurance coverage has been associated with greater use of ART and likely accounts for some of the difference in per capita ART use observed among states. Public Health Action Twins account for the majority of ART-conceived multiple births. Reducing the number of embryos transferred and increasing use of eSET when clinically appropriate could help reduce multiple births and related adverse health consequences for both mothers and infants. State-based surveillance of ART might be useful for monitoring and evaluating maternal and infant health outcomes of ART in states with high ART use.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Pediatrics
                JAMA Pediatr
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6203
                August 26 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
                [2 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
                [3 ]New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York
                [4 ]Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Health System, Bronx, New York
                [5 ]Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
                [6 ]Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
                [7 ]Hackensack Meridian Health School of Medicine, Seton Hall University, Nutley, New Jersey
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Health System, Bronx, New York
                [9 ]Montefiore Health System, Bronx, New York
                [10 ]Department of Pediatrics, Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                [11 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
                [12 ]Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
                [13 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2733
                6714004
                31449284
                8d779438-cf13-4276-877c-4c71022dd906
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article