↓ Skip to main content

Prospective risk analysis and incident reporting for better pharmaceutical care at paediatric hospital discharge

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prospective risk analysis and incident reporting for better pharmaceutical care at paediatric hospital discharge
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11096-014-9977-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laure-Zoé Kaestli, Laurence Cingria, Caroline Fonzo-Christe, Pascal Bonnabry

Abstract

Background Discharging patients from hospital is a complex multidisciplinary process that can lead to non-compliance and medication-related problems. Objective To evaluate risks of discontinuity of pharmaceutical care at paediatric hospital discharge and assess potential improvement strategies, using two complementary methods: a prospective risk analysis and a spontaneous incident reporting system. Setting Geneva University hospitals and community pharmacies. Methods A multidisciplinary team analysed the paediatric medication discharge process applying the failure modes (FM), effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA), using ibuprofen, morphine, valganciclovir as model drugs. Over 46 months, incidents with discharge prescriptions, reported by community pharmacists, were classified according to FMECA's FM. Main outcome measures FM, criticality indexes (CI), incidents. Results Twenty-four FM were identified. The highest criticality scores were given for prescribing the wrong dosage [mean criticality index (CI = 205)], early treatment discontinuation by the patient (CI = 195), and continuation of contraindicated treatment by the general practitioner (CI = 191). Implementation of eight improvement strategies covering the eight most critical FM led to a 64 % reduction in criticality scores (CI 496 vs 1,392). Improvement of the computerized-physician-order-entry system was the single most effective strategy (CI 843 vs 1,392). Only 52 incidents were spontaneously reported (17 for paediatric patients). Paediatric problems most frequently reported (lack of information, 35 %; delay in drug supply, 18 %) were consistent with the highest frequencies scored by FMECA. Conclusion Spontaneous incident reporting leads to high levels of under-reporting, but highlighted similar problems at paediatric hospital discharge to FMECA. Using FMECA allowed estimations of criticalities at each step and the potential impact of safety improvement strategies. Proactive and reactive methods proved complementary and would help to set up effective targeted improvement strategies to improve medication process at paediatric hospital discharge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Unspecified 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 31%
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 31 October 2014.
All research outputs
#6,981,181
of 23,517,535 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#389
of 1,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,105
of 228,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,517,535 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 228,847 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 71% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.