The role of pharmacists in mitigating medication errors in the perioperative setting: a systematic review.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02710-1
Lina Naseralallah, Somaya Koraysh, May Alasmar, Bodoor Aboujabal
{"title":"The role of pharmacists in mitigating medication errors in the perioperative setting: a systematic review.","authors":"Lina Naseralallah, Somaya Koraysh, May Alasmar, Bodoor Aboujabal","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02710-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medication errors occur at any point of the medication management process and are a major cause of death and harm globally. The perioperative environment introduces challenges in identifying medication errors due to the frequent use of time-sensitive, high-alert medications in a dynamic and intricate setting. Pharmacists could potentially reduce the occurrence of these errors because of their training and expertise.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To provide the most up-to-date evidence on the roles and effects of pharmacist interventions on medication errors in perioperative settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched from inception to September 2023. Studies were included if they tested a pharmacist-led intervention aimed at reducing medication errors in adult perioperative settings. The included studies were assessed for quality using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were extracted and synthesized using the DEPICT-2 (Descriptive Elements of Pharmacist Intervention Characterization Tool). Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies were eligible. All included studies incorporated multicomponent interventions, primarily medication reconciliation (n = 13), medicine-related recommendations (n = 12), staff education (n = 6), and patient counselling (n = 4). The development of implemented interventions was poorly reported across all papers. A diverse range of error reporting was observed, and none of the included studies provided definitions or basis for the categorization of errors. Although the studies showed that pharmacist interventions were associated with a reduction in overall medication errors rates, some studies showed inconsistent findings regarding error subtypes. The most common pharmacist intervention was medication optimization via holding or switching between agents.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While there is some evidence of positive impact of the pharmacist-led interventions on medication errors in perioperative setting, this evidence is generally of low quality and insufficient volume. Heterogeneity in study design, definitions, and case detection is common; hence, high-quality research that applies more stringent controls and uses clearer definitions is warranted.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023460812.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731391/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02710-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Medication errors occur at any point of the medication management process and are a major cause of death and harm globally. The perioperative environment introduces challenges in identifying medication errors due to the frequent use of time-sensitive, high-alert medications in a dynamic and intricate setting. Pharmacists could potentially reduce the occurrence of these errors because of their training and expertise.

Aim: To provide the most up-to-date evidence on the roles and effects of pharmacist interventions on medication errors in perioperative settings.

Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched from inception to September 2023. Studies were included if they tested a pharmacist-led intervention aimed at reducing medication errors in adult perioperative settings. The included studies were assessed for quality using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were extracted and synthesized using the DEPICT-2 (Descriptive Elements of Pharmacist Intervention Characterization Tool). Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers.

Results: Sixteen studies were eligible. All included studies incorporated multicomponent interventions, primarily medication reconciliation (n = 13), medicine-related recommendations (n = 12), staff education (n = 6), and patient counselling (n = 4). The development of implemented interventions was poorly reported across all papers. A diverse range of error reporting was observed, and none of the included studies provided definitions or basis for the categorization of errors. Although the studies showed that pharmacist interventions were associated with a reduction in overall medication errors rates, some studies showed inconsistent findings regarding error subtypes. The most common pharmacist intervention was medication optimization via holding or switching between agents.

Conclusion: While there is some evidence of positive impact of the pharmacist-led interventions on medication errors in perioperative setting, this evidence is generally of low quality and insufficient volume. Heterogeneity in study design, definitions, and case detection is common; hence, high-quality research that applies more stringent controls and uses clearer definitions is warranted.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023460812.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药剂师在减少围手术期用药错误中的作用:系统综述。
药物错误发生在药物管理过程的任何一点,是全球死亡和伤害的主要原因。由于在动态和复杂的环境中频繁使用时间敏感、高警戒性的药物,围手术期环境在识别药物错误方面带来了挑战。药剂师可以潜在地减少这些错误的发生,因为他们的培训和专业知识。目的:提供最新的证据,药师干预在围手术期用药错误中的作用和影响。方法:检索PubMed、CINAHL和Embase数据库,检索时间为建站至2023年9月。如果他们测试了药剂师主导的旨在减少成人围手术期用药错误的干预措施,则纳入研究。使用Crowe关键评估工具对纳入的研究进行质量评估。数据提取和合成使用描写元素(描述要素的药剂师干预表征工具)。筛选、质量评估和数据提取由两名独立研究人员进行。结果:16项研究符合条件。所有纳入的研究均采用多组分干预措施,主要包括药物和解(n = 13)、医学相关建议(n = 12)、工作人员教育(n = 6)和患者咨询(n = 4)。所有论文对实施干预措施的发展报告都很差。观察到各种各样的错误报告,所纳入的研究都没有提供错误分类的定义或基础。尽管研究表明,药剂师干预与总体用药错误率的降低有关,但一些研究显示,关于错误亚型的发现不一致。最常见的药剂师干预是通过持有或切换药物进行药物优化。结论:虽然有一些证据表明药师主导的干预措施对围手术期用药错误有积极影响,但这些证据通常质量低,数量不足。研究设计、定义和病例检测的异质性是常见的;因此,应用更严格的控制和使用更清晰定义的高质量研究是有必要的。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42023460812。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Ultra-processed foods and risk of all-cause mortality: an updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Using virtual patients to enhance empathy in medical students: a scoping review protocol. Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol. Self-care interventions among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Caregiver experiences and needs in pediatric rheumatic disease: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1