Skip to main content
Log in

Measuring human-error probabilities in drug preparation: a pilot simulation study

  • Pharmacokinetics and Disposition
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Designing a safe medication process requires the ability to model its reliability using methods such as probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). However, lack of data, especially on human-error probabilities (HEPs), limits its use. To assess whether small-scale simulations could help generate HEP data, a pilot study was conducted among nurses and anaesthetists. It focused on two core activities, namely, the manual preparation of medications and the arithmetic necessary to prepare drugs. Its specific objectives were to evaluate whether HEPs could be high enough to be measurable and to determine whether these HEPs could be sensitive to individuals and task details. These would give some insight into the level of detail required by PRA analysis.

Methods

Thirty nurse and 28 anaesthetist volunteers were involved in the experiment. Nurses and anaesthetists had to prepare medications for 20 patients and 22 syringes of various drugs, respectively. Both groups had to perform 22 calculations relating to the preparation of drugs. HEPs, distribution of HEPs and dependency of HEPs on individuals and task details were assessed.

Results

In the preparation tasks, overall HEP was 3.0% for nurses and 6.5% for anaesthetists. In the arithmetic tasks, overall HEP was 23.8% for nurses and 8.9% for anaesthetists. A statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups. In both preparation and arithmetic tasks, HEPs were dependent on individual nurses but not on individual anaesthetists. In every instance, HEPs were dependent on task details.

Conclusion

Our study illustrates that small-scale simulations represent an interesting way of generating HEPs. HEPs are, indeed, in the range of 10−2 and 10−1. But in most cases, HEPs depend heavily on operators and task details. This dependency means that the influence of these parameters must be determined before advanced PRA analysis. There is therefore an urgent need to develop experimental research into assessing this influence by means of randomised controlled trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M (2000) To err is human. Building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Spath P (2000) Error reduction in health care. A systems approach to improving patient safety. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman E, Prior S, Strange P, Tizzard A (2000) How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. BMJ 320:777–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rex JH, Turnbull JE, Allen SJ, Van de Voorde K, Luther K (2000) Systematic root cause analysis of adverse drug events in a tertiary referral hospital. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 26:563–575

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen M, Senders J, Davis N (1994) Failure mode and effects analysis: a novel approach to avoiding dangerous medication errors and accidents. Hosp Pharm 29:319–330

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DeRosier J, Stalhandske E, Bagian J, Nudell T (2002) Using health care Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: the VA National Center for Patient Safety’s prospective risk analysis system. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 28:248–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kunac DL, Reith DM (2005) Identification of priorities for medication safety in neonatal intensive care. Drug Saf 28:251–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonnabry P, Cingria L, Sadeghipour F, Ing H, Fonzo-Christe C, Pfister RE (2005) Use of a systematic risk analysis method to improve safety in the production of paediatric parenteral nutrition solutions. Qual Saf Health Care 14:93–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. International Electrotechnical Commission. Fault tree analysis (FTA)-IEC 1025 (1990) Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.

  10. Marx DA, Slonim AD (2003) Assessing patient safety risk before the injury occurs: an introduction to sociotechnical probabilistic risk modelling in health care. Qual Saf Health Care 12(Suppl 2):ii33–ii38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wreathall J, Nemeth C (2004) Assessing risk: the role of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in patient safety improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 13:206–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor-Adams S, Kirwan B (1995) Human reliability data requirements. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12:24–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Atwood C, LaChance J, Martz H, Anderson D, Englehardt M, Whitehead D, Wheeler T (2003) NUREG/CR-6823, Handbook of parameter estimation for probabilistic risk assessment. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

  14. Berwick D (1991) Controlling variation in health care: a consultation from Walter Shewhart. Med Care 29:1212–1225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Allan Flynn E, Barker K (1999) Medication errors research. In: M. Cohen (eds) Medication errors. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury pp 6.1–6.30

    Google Scholar 

  16. Allan E, Barker K (1990) Fundamentals of medication error research. Am J Hosp Pharm 47:555–571

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hassall T, Daniels C (1983) Evaluation of three types of control chart methods in unit dose error monitoring. Am J Hosp Pharm 40:970–975

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor J, Gaucher M (1986) Medication selection errors made by pharmacy technicians in filling unit dose orders. Can J Hosp Pharm 39:9–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Taxis K, Barber N (2003) Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors. BMJ 326:684–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bayne T, Bindler R (1997) Effectiveness of medication calculation enhancement methods with nurses. J Nurs Staff Dev 13:293–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen M (1999) Medication errors: causes, prevention, and risk management. John and Bartlett, Sudbury

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leape L (1994) Error in medicine. JAMA 272:1851–1857

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Shojania K, Duncan B, McDonald K, Wachter R (2001) Evidence Report/Technology Assessment N°43; AHRQ publication 01-E058, Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville

  24. Watanabe R, Gilbreath K, Sakamoto C (1994) The ability of the geriatric population to read labels on over-the-counter medication containers. J Am Optom Assoc 65:32–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lambert B, Chang K, Lin S (2001) Effect of orthographic and phonological similarity on false recognition of drug names. Soc Sci Med 52:1843–1857

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wogalter MS, Vigilante WJ Jr (2003) Effects of label format on knowledge acquisition and perceived readability by younger and older adults. Ergonomics 46:327–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Filik R, Purdy K, Gale A, Gerrett D (2004) Drug name confusion: evaluating the effectiveness of capital (“Tall Man”) letters using eye movement data. Soc Sci Med 59:2597–2601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Buchanan T, Barker K, Gibson J, Jiang B, Pearson R (1991) Illumination and errors in dispensing. Am J Hosp Pharm 48:2137–2145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Flynn E, Barker K, Gibson J, Pearson R, Smith L, Berger B (1996) Relationships between ambient sounds and the accuracy of pharmacists’ prescription-filling performance. Hum Factors 38:614–622

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Flynn E, Barker K, Gibson J, Pearson R, Berger B, Smith L (1999) Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in an ambulatory care pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 56:1319–1325

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bates D (2000) Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals. BMJ 320:788–791

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Trunkey DD, Botney R (2001) Assessing competency: a tale of two professions. J Am Coll Surg 192:385–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Amalberti R, Auroy Y, Berwick D, Barach P (2005) Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care. Ann Intern Med 142:756–764

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Quality of Care programme of the Geneva University Hospitals. It was done independently of this funding programme. The authors are indebted to Charles Vincent and Sally Adams for their enlightened and constructive discussion of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Garnerin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garnerin, P., Pellet-Meier, B., Chopard, P. et al. Measuring human-error probabilities in drug preparation: a pilot simulation study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63, 769–776 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0319-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0319-z

Keywords

Navigation