Article Text

Download PDFPDF
PS-059 Serious medicines errors related to antineoplasic and supportive treatment in cancer patients
  1. A Escudero,
  2. M Mejia,
  3. L Martínez,
  4. C Martí,
  5. G Marcos,
  6. D Barreda
  1. Hospital Virgen de la Luz, Pharmacy Department, Cuenca, Spain


Background Medicines Errors (MEs) in patients with cancer are a known safety concern.

Purpose To analyse potential and real MEs detected in the healthcare process in oncology patients.

Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study, from January 2009 to March 2013 in a general hospital, using an electronic prescribing system. The study examined the oncology prescriptions for adult patients receiving Intravenous Antineoplastic (IA) and/or Supportive-care Treatment (ST). We identified MEs at the stages of prescription, pharmacist validation of the prescription, preparation, dispensing and administration of IA and/or ST in cancer patients. Data collected: stage in the drug treatment process and drug involved. We used an error seriousness scale, described by Serrano, to classify the errors that reached the patient: MEs with a score of 4 or more were considered to be clinically significant.

Results A total of 37,425 IAs and STs were prepared and administered to cancer patients, 167 MEs were recorded (accounting for 0.004% of the total preparations). Prescription errors were the most common (n = 80), followed by preparation errors (n = 45), pharmacist validation errors (n = 29) and dispensing/administration errors (n = 13). Regarding the type of drug involved in MEs, 133 were IAs (42% were 5-fluorouracil, trastuzumab or cetuximab) and 34 were ST (68% were filgrastim or zoledronic acid). 13% of errors reached the patient with 4% being clinically significant: 6 MEs were caused by extravasations (which were quickly resolved with extravasation protocols) and one was a dispensing error (omission of filgrastim) where the patient suffered from neutropenia and he had to be hospitalised for one week. Each error was systematically reviewed by a multidisciplinary team in order to minimise future incidents.

Conclusions The majority of potential MEs were detected and resolved by pharmacists and nurses at the prescription’s validation and preparation stages. A double check in the dispensing/administration stage is necessary in order to prevent MEs that could have a serious impact on patient morbidity.

No conflict of interest.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.