OBJECTIVE: To explore whether sleep deprivation contributes to medication errors in registered nurses (RNs).
BACKGROUND: Sleep deprivation is a potential issue for RNs, particularly those who work shifts. Sleep deprivation has been found to have a negative impact on numerous cognitive processes. Nurses administer several medications to patients a day, potentially while sleep deprived-anecdotal reports suggest that this could result in an increased risk of error occurring.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the Prisma-ScR extension framework to explore what is known about the effect of RNs\' sleep deprivation on medication administration errors.
METHODS: A search of databases generated 171 results. When inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 18 empirical studies were analysed. Studies included retrospective analysis of errors, surveys of perceptions of causes and observational studies.
RESULTS: Data indicated that RNs consider fatigue, which may be caused by sleep deprivation, to be a contributing factor to medication errors. The search only identified three observer studies, which provided conflicting results as to whether lack of sleep contributes to the error rate. Of the numerous tools used to measure sleep, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was the most frequently used.
CONCLUSIONS: Although RNs anecdotally consider a lack of sleep potentially contributes to medication errors, there is insufficient research to provide robust evidence to confirm this assumption.
UNASSIGNED: Patient or public contributions were not required for this scoping review.
CONCLUSIONS: Sleep deprivation is a potential issue for nurses, especially those who work shifts. Poor sleep impacts cognitive processes that potentially could increase errors. Nurses should be aware of the impact sleep may have on patient safety.

Peri-operative medication safety is complex. Avoidance of medication errors is both system- and practitioner-based, and many departments within the hospital contribute to safe and effective systems. For the individual anaesthetist, drawing up, labelling and then the correct administration of medications are key components in a patient\'s peri-operative journey. These guidelines aim to provide pragmatic safety steps for the practitioner and other individuals within the operative environment, as well as short- to long-term goals for development of a collaborative approach to reducing errors. The aim is that they will be used as a basis for instilling good practice.

Along with the rapid growth of the global aging society, the mobile and health digital market has expanded greatly. Countless mobile medical apps (mmApps) have sprung up in the internet market, aiming to help patients with chronic diseases achieve medication safety.
Based on the medication safety action plans proposed by the World Health Organization, we aimed to explore the effectiveness of mmApps in ensuring the medication safety of patients with chronic diseases, including whether mmApps can improve the willingness to report adverse drug events (ADEs), improve patients\' medication adherence, and reduce medication errors. We hoped to verify our hypothesis through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The meta-analysis was performed in strict accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and included literature searched from 7 databases-PubMed, Web Of Science, Embase, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and SinoMed. The publication time was limited to the time of database establishment to April 30, 2022. Studies were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data extracted included authors, years of publication, countries or regions, participants\' characteristics, intervention groups, and control groups, among others. Our quality assessment followed the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.3. RevMan 5.2 software (Cochrane Collaboration) was used to analyze the statistical data, and a sensitivity analysis was performed to assess data stability. The degree of stability was calculated by using a different statistical method and excluding large-sample studies from the analysis.
We included 8 studies from 5 countries (China, the United States, France, Canada, and Spain) that were published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021. The total number of participants was 1355, and we analyzed the characteristics of included studies, each app\'s features, the risk of bias, and quality. The results showed that mmApps could increase ADE reporting willingness (relative risk [RR] 2.59, 95% CI 1.26-5.30; P=.009) and significantly improve medication adherence (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31; P=.007), but they had little effect on reducing medication errors (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.33-7.29; P=.58).
We analyzed the following three merits of mmApps, with regard to facilitating the willingness to report ADEs: mmApps facilitate more communication between patients and physicians, patients attach more importance to ADE reporting, and the processing of results is transparent. The use of mmApps improved medication adherence among patients with chronic diseases by conveying medical solutions, providing educational support, tracking medications, and allowing for remote consultations. Finally, we found 3 potential reasons for why our medication error results differed from those of other studies.
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322072; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322072.

We conducted a narrative review in six areas of obstetric emergencies: category-1 caesarean section; difficult and failed airway; massive obstetric haemorrhage; hypertensive crisis; emergencies related to neuraxial anaesthesia; and maternal cardiac arrest. These areas represent significant research published within the last five years, with emphasis on large multicentre randomised trials, national or international practice guidelines and recommendations from major professional societies. Key topics discussed: prevention and management of failed neuraxial technique; role of high-flow nasal oxygenation and choice of neuromuscular drug in obstetric patients; prevention of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia; management of the difficult and failed obstetric airway; current perspectives on the use of tranexamic acid, fibrinogen concentrate and cell salvage; guidance on neuraxial placement in a thrombocytopenic obstetric patient; management of neuraxial drug errors, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity and unusually prolonged neuraxial block regression; and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in maternal cardiac arrest.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

To meet the WHO vision of reducing medication errors by 50%, it is essential to know the current error rate. We undertook an integrative review of the literature, using a systematic search strategy. We included studies that provided an estimate of error rate (i.e. both numerator and denominator data), regardless of type of study (e.g. RCT or observational study). Under each method type, we categorised the error rate by type, by classification used by the primary studies (e.g. wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong time), and then pooled numerator and denominator data across studies to obtain an aggregate error rate for each method type. We included a total of 30 studies in this review. Of these, two studies were national audit projects containing relevant data, and for 28 studies we identified five discrete method types: retrospective recall (6), self-reporting (7), observational (5), large databases (7), and observing for drug calculation errors (3). Of these 28 studies we included 22 for a numerical analysis and used six to inform a narrative review. Drug error is recalled by ~1 in 5 anaesthetists as something that happened over their career; in self-reports there is an admitted rate of ~1 in 200 anaesthetics. In observed practice, error is seen in almost every anaesthetic. In large databases, drug error constitutes ~10% of anaesthesia incidents reported. Wrong drug or dose form the most common type of error across all five study method types (especially dosing error in paediatric studies). We conclude that medication error is common in anaesthetic practice, although we were uncertain of the precise frequency or extent of harm. Studies concerning medication error are very heterogenous, and we recommend consideration of standardised reporting as in other research domains.

暂无摘要。

Despite use of colour-coded labels, syringe substitution (syringe swap) error of anaesthetic drugs remains a frequent and potentially serious cause of iatrogenic harm. We explored the novel concept of using a simple device which can be fitted to existing syringes, and employs colour and raised elements (detents) to provide visual, haptic and auditory cues to supplement the visual cues provided by standard drug labelling, and particularly helps to differentiate, for example, syringes containing vaso-active drugs from other syringes. We produced six different embodiments of the device, and performed a randomised unblinded study with 14 volunteers to identify the functional characteristics which met with the approval of the majority of participants, and the mechanical characteristics which produced adequate haptic feedback without excessive resistance to injection. The optimal design was identified, which required the user to exert a mean (SD) force of ~20 (7) N to overcome the resistance of the detents in the syringe. The majority of volunteers felt that a device of this type would be helpful in reducing the incidence of syringe substitution error; however, further research is needed to assess the efficacy of this innovation in the clinical environment.

The incidence of an anaesthetic drug error can be directly observed in large trials. In an alternative approach, we developed a probabilistic mathematical model in which the anaesthetist is modelled as a \'fallible entity\' who makes repeated drug administration choices during an operation. This fallibility was factored in the model as an initial \'intrinsic error rate\'. The choices faced included: dose; timing of administration; and the routes available for injection (e.g. venous, arterial, epidural, etc.). Additionally, we modelled the effect of fatigue as a factor that magnifies the cumulative error rate. For an initial intrinsic error rate of 1 in 1000 (which from first principles we consider a reasonable estimate), our model predicted a cumulative probability of error over a ~12 h operation of ~10%; that is, 1 in 10 operations this long results in some drug error. This is similar to the rate reported by large observational trials. Serious errors constitute a small fraction of all errors; our model predicts a Poisson distribution for the uncommon serious errors, also consistent with independent observations. Even modest assumptions for the development of fatigue had a dramatic and adverse impact on the cumulative error rate. The practice implications of our modelling include: exercising caution or avoiding starting work if under par; added vigilance in unfamiliar environments; keeping anaesthetic recipes simple; and recognising that operation durations > 5-6 h constitute a time of exaggerated risk. These implications are testable predictions in observational trials. If validated, our model could serve as a potential research tool to investigate the impact of safety interventions on the rate of intrinsic error using simulation.