↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of Medication Errors in Hospitalized Patients: The Japan Adverse Drug Events Study

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Prevention of Medication Errors in Hospitalized Patients: The Japan Adverse Drug Events Study
Published in
Drug Safety, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40264-016-0458-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chihiro Noguchi, Mio Sakuma, Yoshinori Ohta, David W. Bates, Takeshi Morimoto

Abstract

The nature of medication errors (MEs) and the frequency of identified or intercepted MEs are not being scrutinized in daily practice in Japan. The aim of this study was to clarify the epidemiology of MEs and the risk factors for non-intercepted and unidentified MEs. The Japan Adverse Drug Events (JADE) study was a prospective cohort study carried out at three tertiary-care teaching hospitals in Japan. Participants were consecutive patients (N = 3459) aged ≥15 years who were admitted to the study wards. MEs were identified by on-site reviews of all medical charts, self-reports, and prescription queries by pharmacists. Two independent physicians reviewed and classified all MEs and adverse drug events and determined the stages at which the MEs occurred and whether there was interception or identification of the MEs. A total of 514 MEs were observed among 433 patients. Sixty-four percent of MEs occurred at the ordering stage. Among these, 60 % were due to duplicate drug orders. Overall, 63 % and 45 % of MEs were not intercepted or identified during hospitalization, respectively. The independent risk factors for non-intercepted MEs were hospitalization in the surgical ward (odds ratio [OR] 2.94) and the intensive care unit (OR 3.57). MEs by resident physicians were more likely to be intercepted (OR 0.52 for non-intercepted MEs). MEs frequently occurred and most at the ordering stage. Almost half of MEs were not intercepted or identified. Many MEs at the later stages were less likely to be intercepted and resulted in actual patient harm. Systems to improve the identification and interception of MEs should be implemented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,280,634
of 23,866,543 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#1,554
of 1,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,475
of 297,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,866,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 297,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.