Interruption dans l'administration ses traitements et erreur

[Nicolas77]

Association of Interruptions With an Increased Risk and Severity of Medication Administration Errors
Johanna I. Westbrook, PhD; Amanda Woods, RN, MEd; Marilyn I. Rob, PhD; William T. M. Dunsmuir, PhD; Richard O. Day, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):683-690.

Background Interruptions have been implicated as a cause of clinical errors, yet, to our knowledge, no empirical studies of this relationship exist. We tested the hypothesis that interruptions during medication administration increase errors.

Methods We performed an observational study of nurses preparing and administering medications in 6 wards at 2 major teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Procedural failures and interruptions were recorded during direct observation. Clinical errors were identified by comparing observational data with patients' medication charts. A volunteer sample of 98 nurses (representing a participation rate of 82%) were observed preparing and administering 4271 medications to 720 patients over 505 hours from September 2006 through March 2008. Associations between procedural failures (10 indicators; eg, aseptic technique) and clinical errors (12 indicators; eg, wrong dose) and interruptions, and between interruptions and potential severity of failures and errors, were the main outcome measures.

Results Each interruption was associated with a 12.1% increase in procedural failures and a 12.7% increase in clinical errors. The association between interruptions and clinical errors was independent of hospital and nurse characteristics. Interruptions occurred in 53.1% of administrations (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.6%-54.6%). Of total drug administrations, 74.4% (n = 3177) had at least 1 procedural failure (95% CI, 73.1%-75.7%). Administrations with no interruptions (n = 2005) had a procedural failure rate of 69.6% (n = 1395; 95% CI, 67.6%-71.6%), which increased to 84.6% (n = 148; 95% CI, 79.2%-89.9%) with 3 interruptions. Overall, 25.0% (n = 1067; 95% CI, 23.7%-26.3%) of administrations had at least 1 clinical error. Those with no interruptions had a rate of 25.3% (n = 507; 95% CI, 23.4%-27.2%), whereas those with 3 interruptions had a rate of 38.9% (n = 68; 95% CI, 31.6%-46.1%). Nurse experience provided no protection against making a clinical error and was associated with higher procedural failure rates. Error severity increased with interruption frequency. Without interruption, the estimated risk of a major error was 2.3%; with 4 interruptions this risk doubled to 4.7% (95% CI, 2.9%-7.4%; P < .001).

Conclusion Among nurses at 2 hospitals, the occurrence and frequency of interruptions were significantly associated with the incidence of procedural failures and clinical errors.


Author Affiliations: Health Informatics Research and Evaluation Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney (Drs Westbrook and Rob and Ms Woods); School of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science (Dr Dunsmuir), and School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine (Dr Day), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; and St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, Sydney (Dr Day).

[Blurp]

euh... ca aurait été bien si tu avais fait un résumé en francais au lieu de balancer un article comme ca en anglais sans introduction....

[Rinou06]

Même si leurs pourcentages sont assez nébuleux car pas assez expliqués, c'est évident que plus on est interrompus pendant un soin ou l'administration des médicaments plus il y a plus de risques d'erreurs