Video Abstract

Video Abstract

Close modal
CONTEXT:

Patient harm resulting from medication errors drives prevention efforts, yet harm associated with medication errors in children has not been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE:

To review the incidence and severity of preventable adverse drug events (pADEs) resulting from medication errors in pediatric inpatient settings.

DATA SOURCES:

Data sources included Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Embase.

STUDY SELECTION:

Selected studies were published between January 2000 and December 2017, written in the English language, and measured pADEs among pediatric hospital inpatients by chart review or direct observation.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Data extracted were medication error and harm definitions, pADE incidence and severity rates, items required for quality assessment, and sample details.

RESULTS:

Twenty-two studies were included. For children in general pediatric wards, incidence was at 0 to 17 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 1.3% of medication errors (of any type) compared with 0 to 29 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 1.5% of medication errors in ICUs. Hospital-wide studies contained reports of up to 74 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 2.6% of medication errors. The severity of pADEs was mainly minor.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited literature on the severity of pADEs is available. Additional study will better illuminate differences among hospital wards and among those with or without health information technology.

CONCLUSIONS:

Medication errors in pediatric settings seldom result in patient harm, and if they do, harm is predominantly of minor severity. Implementing health information technologies was associated with reduced incidence of harm.

An increased focus on medication errors and adverse drug events (ADEs) came after the 1999 publication of “To Err Is Human” by the Institute of Medicine.1 This report revealed that preventable errors were resulting in more deaths than road accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS combined. A medication error is an error that occurs during the medication process (ordering, dispensing, administering, or monitoring) that can cause harm or increase the risk of harm to a patient.2 Errors with the potential to cause harm or those that cause actual harm are respectively termed potential ADEs and preventable adverse drug events (pADEs).1 Since this report, important patient safety initiatives have been implemented,3 most notably computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems with clinical decision support.4,5 However, in 2017, the World Health Organization announced medication safety as the next global patient safety challenge reflecting continued international concern regarding the risks and harm that poor medication management poses.6 Worldwide, medication errors cost an estimated US $42 billion annually,7 0.7% of the total global health expenditure.7 Targeted approaches require evidence of the patients at greatest risk of harm.

Medication errors are frequent among hospitalized adult patients, with reported medication error rates of 4.8%8 and 5.3%.9 These errors were estimated to be associated with a pADE rate of 3.2 per 1000 patient days in a large study of 2 US hospitals.10 In contrast, children and infants are a more vulnerable population because of age-specific physiologic and developmental variances that may put them at greater risk to medication errors.11 However, a seminal prospective cohort study of 1120 patients, conducted in 1999 before the advent of provider order entry and electronic health records, revealed that the incidence of pADEs among children was lower, with a rate of 1.8 per 1000 patient days.12 This now outdated study remains a popular reference for the incidence of pADEs among children and continues to be consistently cited in the literature.13 Researchers assessing the incidence or severity of pADEs in inpatient pediatric settings are yet to be systematically reviewed. Given the extensive efforts to improve medication safety among children in the last 2 decades and to assist in developing targeted approaches, we undertook a systematic literature review to answer the following questions in reference to pediatric inpatients: (1) what is the incidence of pADEs, (2) what is the severity of pADEs, and (3) what is the proportion of medication errors causing pADEs?

Studies published from 2000 to December 2017 were identified by searching 5 electronic bibliographic databases (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Embase). The search strategy (Supplemental Tables 4 through 8) included terms for medication adjacent to terms for error found in conjunction with terms for pADEs or harm, with results limited to pediatric hospital inpatients (defined as aged <18 years). Studies had to be in the English language, and researchers had to use chart review or observation to detect medication errors. Because of the recognized underreporting, we excluded studies in which researchers used only voluntary incident reports.14,16 Included hospital wards were emergency departments (EDs), ICUs, and general wards (pediatric wards from general hospitals and general wards from pediatric hospitals). Additional exclusion criteria are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram (Fig 1).

FIGURE 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses flow diagram.

FIGURE 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses flow diagram.

Close modal

Two reviewers (P.J.G. and S.A.M.) independently assessed all full-text articles to determine eligibility and rate the quality of published studies (Supplemental Tables 9 through 11). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies17 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Cohort Study Checklist18 were employed in addition to the Checklist Assessment of Medication Error Audits, a purpose-built measure that is focused on incident identification methods. Studies identified as “good” through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale received a point on the overall quality rating, as did those achieving an above average score on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program and the Checklist Assessment of Medication Error Audits (for a possible total quality score of 3 out of 3). Studies were rated as “excellent” quality (3 points), “good” (2 points), “fair” (1 point), and “poor” (no points). Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion.

We defined an ADE as injury or other patient harm resulting from the use of a drug. ADEs were further categorized as being preventable when due to error or not preventable when a drug was used as clinically indicated but the patient suffered an adverse drug reaction (ADR).1 Because ADRs do not involve actual preventable patient harm, they were excluded from this review but have been reviewed elsewhere.19 

Extracted information included medication error and harm definitions, pADE incidence and severity rates, items required for quality assessment, and details of the study sample. In a total of 8 studies, researchers rated pADE severity by using the following scales: National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention 9-point rating20 (4 studies13,21,23), Overhage and Lukes’ 5-point rating24 (2 studies12,25), the 5-point Severity Assessment Code26 (1 study27), and the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists 5-point rating28 (1 study29). To allow comparison between studies, these severity scales were collapsed into 3 categories: minor (including harm described to be “insignificant” or “minimal” to “significant” or “temporary” harm); moderate (including “serious” or “permanent” harm); and severe (including “life-threatening” or “fatal” harm).

Study heterogeneity rendered meta-analysis inappropriate. Studies varied by prescribing system (paper chart or CPOE), ward, error type, and denominators (with pADE incidence reported as a proportion of medication error per 100 admissions or patients, per 100 orders, per 1000 patient days, or per 1000 drug administrations).

Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria,12,13,21,23,25,27,29,46 representing 22 unique studies (details shown in Table 1). Eight studies were rated to be of excellent quality,12,13,21,38,40,41,44,45 5 were good quality,22,34,36,39,43 4 were fair,25,27,30,32 and 5 were poor quality.23,29,31,37,42 Most articles (19 of 25) were published after 2006. There was no evidence to suggest that study quality improved over time.

TABLE 1

Included Study Details

SourceCountryHospitalSystemStudy Length, moReview MethodError Assessment (Level 0–3); Error FocusHarm Assessment, Level 0–3Blinding ER/HR/HSSample Recruitment MethodsAge Range, yMale, %Quality Ratinga
Hospital-wide studies (general and intensive care wards)             
 Kaushal et al12 and Fortescue et al35  United States 2 CH, academic, urban Paper 1.5 PC and VR Level 3; ME (87%–100% agreement) Level 3b (κ 0.7–1.0) ?/?/? All patients <18, 2.2c 51.0 
 Kaushal et al45  United States 1 CH, academic, urban Paper PC and VR Level 2; ME Level 2b ?/Y/? All patients 95% <19, 3.5c 53.0 
 Stultz et al42  United States 1 CH, academic, urban CPOE RC and TT Level 0; dose errors Level 2 ?/?/Y Selected charts <17.8 52.0 
 Walsh et al43,46  United States 1 CH, academic, urban Paper and CPOE 7 + 9 RC Level 3; ME (70% agreement) Level 3b (40% agreement) Y/Y/Y Randomized, selected charts 4c 
 Holdsworth et al36  United States 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban Paper PC and VR Level 1; ME Level 2b N/Y/N All patients 6.3c 55.1 
 Holdsworth et al37  United States 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban CPOE PC and VR and TT Level 1; ME Level 2 N/Y/N All patients 7.1c 53.8 
 Kunac and Reith38  New Zealand 1 GH, academic, urban Paper PC and VR and PI Level 1; ME Level 2b ?/?/N All patients <17 53.7 
 Otero et al40  Argentina 1 GH, academic, urban Paper RC Level 2; ME Level 2 N/N/Y Randomized 4.0c 
 Sakuma et al41  Japan 2 GH, 1 academic, 2 urban CPOE RC Level 2; ME Level 3 (κ 0.3–0.9) ?/?/Y All patients 2c 55.0 
 Wang et al44  United States 1 GH, academic, urban Paper PC and VR Level 0; ME Level 3 (88% agreement) N/Y/N All patients 
General ward (nonintensive care)             
 Barber et al31  United Kingdom 1 GH, academic, urban Paper and CPOE 1 + 1 RC Level 2; PE Level 2 ?/?/Y Randomized, selected charts and patients 
 Gazarian and Graudins27  Australia 1 CH, unaffiliated, urban Paper PC Level 2; ME Level 2b ?/?/? <16 59.9 
 Dedefo et al13  Ethiopia 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban Paper PC and TT Level 1; ME Level 2b N/?/N All patients <18 63.9 
PICU             
 Agarwal et al30  United States 12 CH, 3 GH, 13 academic, unclear Paper RC and TT Level 0; ME Level 2 N/Y/Y Randomized, selected patients <34 d 58.0 
 Buckley et al25  United States 1 GH, academic, urban Paper O and VR Level 0; ME Level 3 (88% agreement) N/N/N Selected charts and patients <18, 6.6c 57.9 
 Cimino et al34  United States 8 CH, 1 GH, unclear Paper 0.5 PC Level 2; PE Level 2 Y /? / ? Selected charts 
 Glanzmann et al23  Switzerland 1 CH, unaffiliated, urban Paper 10 PC Level 1; ME Level 3 (96% agreement) N/?/N Selected charts and patients Up to adolescent 63.0 
 Martinez-Anton et al21  Spain 1 unclear, academic, urban Paper PC Level 1; PE Level 1 Y/Y/Y All patients 3.3 moc 
NICU             
 Campino et al32,33  Spain 1 GH, academic, regional Paper PC Level 1; ME Level 1 Y/N/Y Randomized Neonates 
 Jain et al29  India 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban Paper RC Level 0; ME Level 0 Y/Y/Y Randomized, selected patients Neonates 
 Morriss Jr et al22  United States 1 CH, academic, urban Paper and barcoding 12.5 PC and VR and TT Level 3; ME (κ 0.8) Level 2 N/Y/N Randomized Neonates, 34.5 wkc 59.8 
ED             
 Marcin et al39  United States 4 unclear, rural Paper 0.5 RC Level 3; ME (κ 0.7) Level 2 Y/Y/Y All seriously ill patients <17 49.7 
SourceCountryHospitalSystemStudy Length, moReview MethodError Assessment (Level 0–3); Error FocusHarm Assessment, Level 0–3Blinding ER/HR/HSSample Recruitment MethodsAge Range, yMale, %Quality Ratinga
Hospital-wide studies (general and intensive care wards)             
 Kaushal et al12 and Fortescue et al35  United States 2 CH, academic, urban Paper 1.5 PC and VR Level 3; ME (87%–100% agreement) Level 3b (κ 0.7–1.0) ?/?/? All patients <18, 2.2c 51.0 
 Kaushal et al45  United States 1 CH, academic, urban Paper PC and VR Level 2; ME Level 2b ?/Y/? All patients 95% <19, 3.5c 53.0 
 Stultz et al42  United States 1 CH, academic, urban CPOE RC and TT Level 0; dose errors Level 2 ?/?/Y Selected charts <17.8 52.0 
 Walsh et al43,46  United States 1 CH, academic, urban Paper and CPOE 7 + 9 RC Level 3; ME (70% agreement) Level 3b (40% agreement) Y/Y/Y Randomized, selected charts 4c 
 Holdsworth et al36  United States 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban Paper PC and VR Level 1; ME Level 2b N/Y/N All patients 6.3c 55.1 
 Holdsworth et al37  United States 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban CPOE PC and VR and TT Level 1; ME Level 2 N/Y/N All patients 7.1c 53.8 
 Kunac and Reith38  New Zealand 1 GH, academic, urban Paper PC and VR and PI Level 1; ME Level 2b ?/?/N All patients <17 53.7 
 Otero et al40  Argentina 1 GH, academic, urban Paper RC Level 2; ME Level 2 N/N/Y Randomized 4.0c 
 Sakuma et al41  Japan 2 GH, 1 academic, 2 urban CPOE RC Level 2; ME Level 3 (κ 0.3–0.9) ?/?/Y All patients 2c 55.0 
 Wang et al44  United States 1 GH, academic, urban Paper PC and VR Level 0; ME Level 3 (88% agreement) N/Y/N All patients 
General ward (nonintensive care)             
 Barber et al31  United Kingdom 1 GH, academic, urban Paper and CPOE 1 + 1 RC Level 2; PE Level 2 ?/?/Y Randomized, selected charts and patients 
 Gazarian and Graudins27  Australia 1 CH, unaffiliated, urban Paper PC Level 2; ME Level 2b ?/?/? <16 59.9 
 Dedefo et al13  Ethiopia 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban Paper PC and TT Level 1; ME Level 2b N/?/N All patients <18 63.9 
PICU             
 Agarwal et al30  United States 12 CH, 3 GH, 13 academic, unclear Paper RC and TT Level 0; ME Level 2 N/Y/Y Randomized, selected patients <34 d 58.0 
 Buckley et al25  United States 1 GH, academic, urban Paper O and VR Level 0; ME Level 3 (88% agreement) N/N/N Selected charts and patients <18, 6.6c 57.9 
 Cimino et al34  United States 8 CH, 1 GH, unclear Paper 0.5 PC Level 2; PE Level 2 Y /? / ? Selected charts 
 Glanzmann et al23  Switzerland 1 CH, unaffiliated, urban Paper 10 PC Level 1; ME Level 3 (96% agreement) N/?/N Selected charts and patients Up to adolescent 63.0 
 Martinez-Anton et al21  Spain 1 unclear, academic, urban Paper PC Level 1; PE Level 1 Y/Y/Y All patients 3.3 moc 
NICU             
 Campino et al32,33  Spain 1 GH, academic, regional Paper PC Level 1; ME Level 1 Y/N/Y Randomized Neonates 
 Jain et al29  India 1 GH, unaffiliated, urban Paper RC Level 0; ME Level 0 Y/Y/Y Randomized, selected patients Neonates 
 Morriss Jr et al22  United States 1 CH, academic, urban Paper and barcoding 12.5 PC and VR and TT Level 3; ME (κ 0.8) Level 2 N/Y/N Randomized Neonates, 34.5 wkc 59.8 
ED             
 Marcin et al39  United States 4 unclear, rural Paper 0.5 RC Level 3; ME (κ 0.7) Level 2 Y/Y/Y All seriously ill patients <17 49.7 

Level 0, unclear review methods; Level 1, single reviewer and/or brief observation protocol; Level 2, multiple reviewers with arbitration or consensus on outcome and/or detailed observation protocol; Level 3, additional interrater reliability reported. CH, children’s hospital; ER, error reviewers were independent from hospital staff; GH, general hospital; HR, harm reviewers were independent from hospital staff; HS, hospital staff were unaware of the study; ME, medication error; N, no; O, observation; PC, prospective chart review; PE, prescription error; PI, parent interview; RC, retrospective chart review; TT, trigger tool; VR, voluntary reporting; Y, yes; ?, unclear or not reported.

a

Quality rating of 3 is referred to as “excellent,” 2 as “good,” 1 as “fair,” and 0 as “poor.”

b

Included detail on methods or tools used to be confident of the causal link between an ME and pADE.

c

Mean age is provided where age range was not reported.

The definitions and range of medication errors varied greatly across studies. Importantly, prescribing errors, particularly dosing errors, were consistently identified to be the most likely medication error found to cause pADEs.* Despite small variations in wording, our definition of pADE was used across most studies, with the exception of a single study in which the authors assessed “serious medication errors” to include pADEs and nonintercepted errors found not to cause harm.45 

The incidence of pADEs and proportion of medication errors causing pADEs is outlined for individual studies in Table 2 and summarized by hospital ward in Table 3.

TABLE 2

Incidence of pADEs

SourceSystemWard(s)Error TypeNo. Errors, % Errors Causing pADEsTotal AdmissionspADEs per 100 AdmissionsTotal OrderspADEs per 100 OrdersTotal Drugs GivenpADEs per 1000 DrugsTotal Patient dpADEs per 1000 Patient d
Walsh et al43  CPOE Multiple ME 352 3.4 6916 0.2 1930 6.5 
Holdsworth et al37  CPOE Multiple ME 1210 2.2 3.4 
Sakuma et al41  CPOE Multiple ME 826, 4.4% 1189 12 691 2.8 (1.9–3.8) 
Stultz et al42  CPOE Multiple Dose 257, 1.6% 189a 47 181 
Walsh et al46  Paper Multiple ME 275 5777 1386 7.9 
Holdsworth et al36  Paper Multiple ME 1197 3.8 10 164 4.5 
Wang et al 200744  Paper Multiple ME 865, 1.9% 678 2.4 16 938 0.1 5172 31 
Kaushal et al12 and Fortescue et al35  Paper Multiple ME 616, 0.8% 1120 0.5 10 778 0.1 3932 1.8 
Kaushal et al45  Paper Multiple ME 634 1544 28.5 
Otero et al40  Paper Multiple ME 201, 0% 95a 590 1174 
Kunac and Reith38  Paper Multiple ME 593, 6.4% 520 3160 3037 
Paper Multiple PE 520 43 (38–49) 3160 7.1 (6.2–8.1) 3037 74 (64–88) 
Paper Multiple DI 520 7 (5–9) 3160 1.1 (0.7–1.5) 3037 11 (8–16) 
Paper Multiple AE 520 32 (27–37) 3160 5.2 (4.4–6) 3037 54 (46–63) 
Paper Multiple MO 520 11 (8–14) 3160 1.7 (1.3–2.3) 3037 18 (14–24) 
Holdsworth et al36  Paper General ME 10 164 2.1b 
Barber et al31  CPOE General PE 31, 0% 25a 161 55 
Paper General PE 16, 0% 25a 115 35 
Gazarian and Graudins27  Paper General ME 359 3.6 
Dedefo et al13  Paper General ME 513, 1.6% 233a 7.3 1115 1.5 999 17 
Kaushal et al45  Paper General ME 425 1233 12.2 
Otero et al40  Paper General ME 81, 0% 240 443 
Cimino et al34  Paper PICU PE 12 026 0.13 
Martinez-Anton et al21  Paper PICU PE 761, 0% 52a 2228 22 
Agarwal et al30  Paper PICU ME 734 5201 21 
Holdsworth et al36  Paper PICU ME 1197 10 164 2.0b 
Buckley et al25  Paper PICU ME 52, 13.5% 38a 357 263 27 
Glanzmann et al23  Paper PICU PE 151, 15.2% 153a 1129 9 (6.5–14.4) 
Kaushal et al45  Paper PICU ME 209 311 29 
Otero et al40  Paper PICU ME 68, 0% 169 364 
Morriss Jr et al22  Barcoding NICU ME 3690, 0.54% 46 308 0.43 6154 6.5 (SD 8.2) 
Paper NICU ME 3204, 1.2% 46 090 0.86 6094 3.2 (SD 6.0) 
Campino et al33  Paper NICU PE 803, 0% 4182 
Otero et al40  Paper NICU ME 52, 0% 181 367 
Jain et al29  Paper NICU ME 27, 11.1% 494 
Paper ED ME 54, 11.1% 327 
Marcin et al39  Paper ED ME 90, 0% 135a 177 
SourceSystemWard(s)Error TypeNo. Errors, % Errors Causing pADEsTotal AdmissionspADEs per 100 AdmissionsTotal OrderspADEs per 100 OrdersTotal Drugs GivenpADEs per 1000 DrugsTotal Patient dpADEs per 1000 Patient d
Walsh et al43  CPOE Multiple ME 352 3.4 6916 0.2 1930 6.5 
Holdsworth et al37  CPOE Multiple ME 1210 2.2 3.4 
Sakuma et al41  CPOE Multiple ME 826, 4.4% 1189 12 691 2.8 (1.9–3.8) 
Stultz et al42  CPOE Multiple Dose 257, 1.6% 189a 47 181 
Walsh et al46  Paper Multiple ME 275 5777 1386 7.9 
Holdsworth et al36  Paper Multiple ME 1197 3.8 10 164 4.5 
Wang et al 200744  Paper Multiple ME 865, 1.9% 678 2.4 16 938 0.1 5172 31 
Kaushal et al12 and Fortescue et al35  Paper Multiple ME 616, 0.8% 1120 0.5 10 778 0.1 3932 1.8 
Kaushal et al45  Paper Multiple ME 634 1544 28.5 
Otero et al40  Paper Multiple ME 201, 0% 95a 590 1174 
Kunac and Reith38  Paper Multiple ME 593, 6.4% 520 3160 3037 
Paper Multiple PE 520 43 (38–49) 3160 7.1 (6.2–8.1) 3037 74 (64–88) 
Paper Multiple DI 520 7 (5–9) 3160 1.1 (0.7–1.5) 3037 11 (8–16) 
Paper Multiple AE 520 32 (27–37) 3160 5.2 (4.4–6) 3037 54 (46–63) 
Paper Multiple MO 520 11 (8–14) 3160 1.7 (1.3–2.3) 3037 18 (14–24) 
Holdsworth et al36  Paper General ME 10 164 2.1b 
Barber et al31  CPOE General PE 31, 0% 25a 161 55 
Paper General PE 16, 0% 25a 115 35 
Gazarian and Graudins27  Paper General ME 359 3.6 
Dedefo et al13  Paper General ME 513, 1.6% 233a 7.3 1115 1.5 999 17 
Kaushal et al45  Paper General ME 425 1233 12.2 
Otero et al40  Paper General ME 81, 0% 240 443 
Cimino et al34  Paper PICU PE 12 026 0.13 
Martinez-Anton et al21  Paper PICU PE 761, 0% 52a 2228 22 
Agarwal et al30  Paper PICU ME 734 5201 21 
Holdsworth et al36  Paper PICU ME 1197 10 164 2.0b 
Buckley et al25  Paper PICU ME 52, 13.5% 38a 357 263 27 
Glanzmann et al23  Paper PICU PE 151, 15.2% 153a 1129 9 (6.5–14.4) 
Kaushal et al45  Paper PICU ME 209 311 29 
Otero et al40  Paper PICU ME 68, 0% 169 364 
Morriss Jr et al22  Barcoding NICU ME 3690, 0.54% 46 308 0.43 6154 6.5 (SD 8.2) 
Paper NICU ME 3204, 1.2% 46 090 0.86 6094 3.2 (SD 6.0) 
Campino et al33  Paper NICU PE 803, 0% 4182 
Otero et al40  Paper NICU ME 52, 0% 181 367 
Jain et al29  Paper NICU ME 27, 11.1% 494 
Paper ED ME 54, 11.1% 327 
Marcin et al39  Paper ED ME 90, 0% 135a 177 

pADE rates are presented as averages with a 95% CI where provided. AE, administration error; DI, dispensing error; ME, medication error; MO, monitoring error; PE, prescribing error.

a

The number of patients is provided when the total number of admissions is not reported.

b

This study was controlled for the number of medications within the specific unit.

TABLE 3

The Incidence and Severity of pADEs in Pediatric Settings

Research QuestionsMultiple Pediatric Ward (General and Intensive Care)General Ward (Nonintensive Care)Intensive Care and ED
Paper ChartHITPaper chartHITPaper ChartHIT
Incidence of pADE 7 studies12,36,38,40,44,46  4 studies37,41,43  5 studies13,27,31,36,45  1 study31  11 studies21,23,25,29,30,33,34,36,39,45  1 study22  
0–43 per 100 admissions 2.2–3.4 per 100 admissions 0–7.3 per 100 admissions No pADE found 0.86–27 per 1000 drug administrations 0.43 per 1000 drug administrations 
0–7.1 per 100 orders 0.17 per 100 orders 0–1.5 per 100 orders  0 per 100 admissions 6.5 per 1000 patient d 
0–74 per 1000 patient d 3.4–6.5 per 1000 patient d 0–17 per 1000 patient d  0–9 per 100 orders  
    0–29 per 1000 patient d  
Proportion of medication errors causing pADE 4 studies12,38,40,44  2 studies41,42  2 studies13,31  1 study31  7 studies21,23,25,29,33,39  1 study22  
2275 ME; 59 (2.6%) causing pADEs 1083 ME; 40 (3.7%) causing pADEs 610 ME; 8 (1.3%) causing pADEs 31 ME; no pADEs 5262 ME; 78 (1.5%) causing pADEs 3690 ME; 20 (0.54%) pADEs 
Severity of pADE 1 study12  No studies 2 studies13,27  No studies 4 studies22,23,25,29  No studies 
5 pADEs: 1 minor, 4 moderate 21 pADEs: 18 minor, 3 moderate 53 pADEs: 44 minor, 8 moderate, 1 severe  
Research QuestionsMultiple Pediatric Ward (General and Intensive Care)General Ward (Nonintensive Care)Intensive Care and ED
Paper ChartHITPaper chartHITPaper ChartHIT
Incidence of pADE 7 studies12,36,38,40,44,46  4 studies37,41,43  5 studies13,27,31,36,45  1 study31  11 studies21,23,25,29,30,33,34,36,39,45  1 study22  
0–43 per 100 admissions 2.2–3.4 per 100 admissions 0–7.3 per 100 admissions No pADE found 0.86–27 per 1000 drug administrations 0.43 per 1000 drug administrations 
0–7.1 per 100 orders 0.17 per 100 orders 0–1.5 per 100 orders  0 per 100 admissions 6.5 per 1000 patient d 
0–74 per 1000 patient d 3.4–6.5 per 1000 patient d 0–17 per 1000 patient d  0–9 per 100 orders  
    0–29 per 1000 patient d  
Proportion of medication errors causing pADE 4 studies12,38,40,44  2 studies41,42  2 studies13,31  1 study31  7 studies21,23,25,29,33,39  1 study22  
2275 ME; 59 (2.6%) causing pADEs 1083 ME; 40 (3.7%) causing pADEs 610 ME; 8 (1.3%) causing pADEs 31 ME; no pADEs 5262 ME; 78 (1.5%) causing pADEs 3690 ME; 20 (0.54%) pADEs 
Severity of pADE 1 study12  No studies 2 studies13,27  No studies 4 studies22,23,25,29  No studies 
5 pADEs: 1 minor, 4 moderate 21 pADEs: 18 minor, 3 moderate 53 pADEs: 44 minor, 8 moderate, 1 severe  

This table includes data from all included studies regardless of quality. ME, medication error.

A total of 5 US studies,12,36,44,46 1 Argentinian study,40 and 1 New Zealand study38 contained reports of incidences of pADEs across multiple pediatric wards (both general and intensive care wards). Each study was rated to be good to excellent quality. Excluding the Argentinian study, which revealed no actual patient harm,40 the incidence was between 1.8 to 74.0 pADEs per 1000 patient days and 0.5 to 3.8 per 100 admissions; in 1 study, researchers reported 0.1 per 100 orders. Severity of pADEs across multiple pediatric wards was reported in only 1 study12 in which 5 pADEs resulted from 616 medication errors, with 1 rated minor and 4 moderate severity. In the 4 studies that contained reports of the proportion of medication errors causing a pADE, 59 (2.6%) of a combined 2275 errors resulted in a pADE.35,38,40,44 

Excluding a single study rated to be of poor quality,31 the incidence of pADEs in general pediatric wards was reported in 5 studies rated as good to excellent quality.13,27,36,40,45 Across 3 studies, there were between 12.2 and 17.0 pADEs per 1000 patient days, 1.5 per 100 orders, and between 3.6 and 7.3 per 100 admissions.13,27,45 The fourth study included all pADEs divided by the number of medications delivered in the unit and contained a report of 2.1 pADEs per 1000 patient days.36 The remaining study of an Argentinian general ward revealed no actual patient harm.40 

The authors of a single study conducted in the general ward of an Australian children’s hospital rated the severity of harm caused by pADEs in general pediatric wards. The authors identified 13 pADEs over 1 month, with 10 rated to be of minor severity and 3 rated moderate.27 

In 2 high-quality studies, researchers reported the proportion of medication errors causing pADEs in general pediatric wards.13,40 The first was undertaken in the pediatric ward of an Ethiopian hospital, and the researchers reported that 8 (1.6%) of 513 errors resulted in a pADE, all of which were rated of minor severity.13 The second was conducted in the general ward of a children’s hospital in Argentina, and the researchers identified 201 medication errors but found no pADEs.40 

The incidence of pADEs in PICUs was assessed in 7 studies21,23,25,30,34,36,45; 4 studies were rated to be of excellent quality,21,36,40,45 and 1 study was rated to be of good quality.34 In the first excellent quality study, the authors reported 29 pADEs per 1000 patient days,45 whereas the second included all pADEs divided by the number of medications delivered in the unit and contained a report of 2.0 pADEs per 1000 patient days.36 The 2 remaining excellent quality studies were conducted in Spanish and Argentinian PICUs, and the researchers identified 829 medication errors but found no pADEs.21,40 The good quality study was of 9 US PICUs, and researchers identified 0.13 pADEs per 100 orders.34 Three additional studies rated to be of poor to fair quality contained reports of 2 and 9 pADEs per 100 orders and 21 pADEs per 1000 patient days.23,25,30 

Across the 3 studies that contained reports of the proportion of medication errors in PICUs causing a pADE, 30 (3.1%) of a combined 964 errors resulted in a pADE.21,23,25 In each of these studies, researchers also rated the severity of the pADEs, with a combined total of 22 rated to be of minor severity, 7 moderate, and 1 classified as severe.

A single US study rated to be of good quality contained a report of 3.2 pADEs per 1000 patient days or 0.86 per 1000 medications administered.22 The researchers found that 39 (1.2%) of 3204 medication errors resulted in a pADE. In 2 additional studies rated as fair and excellent quality of Spanish and Argentinian NICUs, researchers identified 855 medication errors but found no pADEs.33,40 

In 1 study rated to be of poor quality, researchers reported the proportion of medication errors causing a pADE in an Indian NICU and rated their severity.29 The researchers found that 3 of 27 medication errors resulted in a pADE, with 1 rated to be of minor severity and 2 moderate.

Only 2 studies included data on pADEs in EDs in children’s hospitals, and neither provided data on the incidence of pADEs.29,39 The first study was rated to be of good quality and comprised an audit of 4 rural EDs.39 In that study, researchers identified 90 medication errors; however, no error resulted in a pADE. The remaining study, undertaken in India, was rated to be of poor quality.29 The researchers identified 54 medication errors. Six of those medication errors were found to result in a pADE, with 3 rated to be of minor severity and 3 rated moderate.29 

In a total of 6 studies, researchers provided data on pADEs in hospitals using health information technologies (HITs)22,31,37,41,43; in 4 of those studies, researchers used a pre-post design with baseline data already described.22,31,37,46 In 2 studies, researchers assessed CPOE systems.41,42 In 1 of those studies, researchers reported the incidence of pADE in 2 Japanese hospitals.41 That study was rated to be of excellent quality and contained a report stating that 360 (43.6%) of 826 medication errors caused pADEs, with an incidence rate of 2.8 pADEs per 1000 patient days. The remaining study of a CPOE system did not contain a report of the incidence of pADEs but revealed that 40 (1.56%) of 257 dosing errors in a US hospital caused pADEs.42 

Although not a focus of this review, the 4 pre-post studies provide insight into the impact of introducing HITs on the incidence of pADE. In summary, the implementation of CPOE in 2 multiple ward studies rated as good quality resulted in a significant reduction by 1.1 and 1.4 pADEs per 1000 patient days (reducing from 4.5 to 3.4 and 7.9 to 6.5, respectively).36,37,46 Similarly, after 2 months of use of a barcode medication administration system with dosing alerts in a US NICU, the incidence of pADEs was reduced by 0.5 pADEs per 1000 drug administrations and 3.3 pADEs per 1000 patient days.22 In contrast, a single study rated to be of poor quality revealed that the introduction of CPOE in a UK pediatric ward in a general hospital was associated with an increase in the number of identified prescribing errors from 16 to 31, although no pADEs were found.31 

We identified 22 studies that included information on pADEs among pediatric inpatients. Notably, only 6 studies contained reports of incidence of pADEs across multiple wards,12,36,38,40,43,44 4 of which were conducted in the United States.12,36,43,44 The incidence of pADEs in pediatric inpatient settings is low, with the highest reported incidence found to be 74 pADEs per 1000 patient days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64–84). Similarly, the proportion of medication errors estimated to result in a pADEs was low with the highest estimates found to be 15.2% in ICUs and 6.4% across hospital-wide studies. In addition, the severity of pADEs was predominantly minor (temporary harm). Less than 1 in 10 pADEs were rated to be of moderate severity (permanent harm), and life-threatening incidents were extremely rare. In sum, the likelihood of a pediatric patient experiencing a moderate or severe pADE during a hospital stay is fortunately rare.

Few researchers have directly compared the incidence of pADEs between pediatric and adult inpatients. Indirect comparison between 2 highly cited US studies suggests pADEs are less frequent among children. That is, the seminal 2001 study by Kaushal et al,12 which reported 1.8 pADEs per 1000 patient days among pediatric inpatients, is often compared with another highly cited study of adult inpatients by Bates et al,10 which reported 3.2 pADEs per 1000 patient days (95% CI: 2.5–4.0). Moreover, direct comparisons made in a single observational study conducted in the ICUs of a Moroccan general hospital revealed the incidence of pADEs among pediatric inpatients to be less than half that of adults (1.5 compared with 4.7 pADEs per 1000 patient days).47 However, 2 more recent studies conducted in Japanese hospitals with CPOE revealed a similar incidence in adults and children, with an estimated 2.4 pADEs per 1000 patient days among adults (95% CI: 2.0–2.8)48 compared with 2.8 pADEs per 1000 patient days among children (95% CI: 1.9–3.8).41 In contrast, the risk of medication error is consistently higher among children than adults, primarily because of the increased need for individual weight-based or surface-based dose calculations among pediatric inpatients.49 These results suggest that although the risk of medication error in pediatric settings is greater than in adult settings, these errors are less likely to be associated with actual harm to patients.

Only 9 studies were primarily conducted in intensive care and ED settings, and only 4 were rated to be of at least good quality.21,22,34,39 Nevertheless, there appeared to be a higher incidence of pADEs in these settings compared with general pediatric wards. Across studies, there were up to 29 pADEs per 1000 patient days in intensive care and ED settings compared with up to 17 pADEs per 1000 patient days in general wards. Similarly, the proportion of errors causing pADEs was 1.5% of 5262 medication errors compared with 1.3% of 610 errors. It remains unclear if this difference reflects differences like complexity of care or the greater medication exposure in ICUs.50 However, in 1 study, researchers adjusted for medication exposure and found the incidence of preventable events was similar, with rates of 2.0 per 1000 patient days in PICU and 2.1 in a general ward of the same hospital.36 

Surprisingly few studies have contained assessments of the impact of introducing HITs on pADEs, with 4 studies containing investigations of patient harm,21,22,31,37,46 3 of which included patient harm as a primary outcome.22,37,46 Notably, the researchers for all 3 of these studies reported a significant overall reduction in the incidence of pADEs after HITs implementation. However, some areas of concern remained. In the first study, researchers reported that underdosing of analgesic medications remained a concern despite available clinical decision support.37 In the second, researchers identified a number of new types of computer-related errors associated with CPOE implementation, such as drop-down menu selection errors.43 These computer-related errors were associated with pADE incidence at 1.6 per 1000 patient days. The third study revealed an increase in medication errors after implementation of a barcoding system, primarily due to an improved ability of the system to detect wrong-timing errors not associated with harm.22 Overall, these findings are consistent with the conclusions drawn from previous reviews that advocate for the introduction of HITs in pediatric hospitals but with a need for further study to improve design and implementation to avoid the inadvertent introduction of new types of errors and harm.51,54 

The severity of pADEs was reported in only 7 of the included studies.12,13,21,23,25,27,29 A total of 85 pADEs were identified across these studies, of which only 1 was reported to result in a life-threatening outcome. Most preventable adverse events were rated as minor (69 of 85), and researchers for 3 studies found only minor harm.13,21,29 In comparison, the 1995 study by Bates et al10 of adult inpatients revealed 14 of 70 pADEs to be life-threatening. Although never directly compared in a single study, pADEs occurring in children may be less severe than pADEs in adults. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria contained assessments of the severity of pADEs in a hospital where the staff use HITs. The absence of studies is notable and deserves future attention because the researchers have investigated the incidence of medication-related harm to children after the introduction of information technologies. More generally, there is a limited number of recent high-quality studies that have gone beyond reporting medication error rates to determine the extent of associated harm in children. This information is central to designing targeted interventions such as electronic decision support, which is focused on error types likely to produce harm.55 

The studies we identified were chiefly of good to excellent quality. Study quality, error detection method, or patient sampling technique did not consistently explain the variation in pADE incidence between studies. However, the included studies had a number of limitations, and caution should be taken in generalizing findings to other settings or contexts. Over half of the studies were conducted in the United States. Secondly, studies were undertaken at single sites, with the most notable exception a study of PICUs from 15 urban teaching hospitals.30 Thirdly, only 12 studies included information on the method used to determine harm associated with medication errors. How this assessment was performed in the remaining 10 studies remained unclear, reducing confidence in the findings. The Naranjo et al56 algorithm, a tool typically used to assess ADRs, was the most commonly employed technique for this process and was referenced in 4 studies.12,13,27,45 These findings suggest that the call for a common protocol for the measurement and reporting of patient safety data remains unanswered.57,58 Finally, the authors of only 2 of the 14 studies that had a prospective chart review addressed the potential impact of the hospital staff’s knowledge that their orders were under review.21,32 Thus, the remaining prospective studies were not exempt from the “Hawthorne effect.” Similarly, the potential bias of the reviewers’ knowledge of any associated hospital staff or patients was only addressed in 6 of the 22 studies,21,29,32,34,39,43 again reducing confidence in the findings.

In sum, we recommend that future researchers take steps to ensure hospital settings are detailed, error identification methods and error definitions are consistent and transparent, and validated tools are used where possible. Determining how pADEs are identified and whether ADEs were preventable and caused by a medication error is a complex process and is often omitted in study methods or oversimplified by stating that this was left to “clinician judgment.” Validated tools are useful in this process, and, in the absence of any recognized gold standards, we recommend the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre system for determining harm causation59 and the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention index20 for rating harm severity.

Our review had some limitations. Firstly, study heterogeneity prevented formal statistical summary or meta-analysis. A previous review of medication errors in pediatrics included a meta-analysis conducted by combining studies with different error identification techniques, definitions of error, hospital wards, and hospital settings.60 Secondly, the strict inclusion criteria limited the number of studies reviewed. However, the decision to exclude studies identifying patient harm by voluntary reporting is supported by several studies, which demonstrated the significant underreporting of incidents compared with chart review or observation.16,25,38 In addition, the decision to exclude studies undertaken in outpatient and primary care setting was driven by the availability of research in these contexts61,63 and our focus on HITs. Finally, we combined study definitions of medication error despite variation in individual study definitions and included error types. As such, studies in which fewer types of medication errors were assessed are likely to identify fewer errors with an associated opportunity to cause a pADE and therefore report a lower incidence of pADEs compared with studies containing assessments of multiple medication error types.

There is limited literature in which the incidence of pADE in children is assessed. Across studies, we found the highest incidence to be 74 pADEs per 1000 patient days, 43 per 100 admissions, 9 per 100 orders, with up to 15.2% of errors resulting in a pADE. Comparisons suggest the risk of any pADE occurring is lower among children than adults. Although few studies contained assessments of pADE severity, the observed harm was predominantly minor. Incidence of pADEs in ICUs was higher than general wards, although this may reflect greater opportunities for error and harm because of higher rates of medication administration and sicker children. The introduction of HITs appears to reduce the incidence of patient harm resulting from medication errors in pediatric settings, but there are surprisingly few studies of the impact of these technologies on medication error outcomes for children.

     
  • ADE

    adverse drug event

  •  
  • ADR

    adverse drug reaction

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • CPOE

    computerized physician order entry

  •  
  • ED

    emergency department

  •  
  • HIT

    health information technology

  •  
  • pADE

    preventable adverse drug event

Dr Gates conducted the literature search, screened search results, reviewed all included studies, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Ms Meyerson screened search results and reviewed all included studies and contributed to the draft manuscript; Dr Lehmann contributed to the interpretation of data and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Baysari contributed to study design and development of search terms, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and provided mentorship; Dr Westbrook contributed to study design and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

FUNDING: Supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Partnership Grant (APP1094878) in partnership with Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network, eHealth New South Wales, and the Office of Kids and Families, New South Wales.

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2018-1841.

*

Refs 12,13,22,23,25,34,3638,4446.

Refs 12,13,25,27,30,36,38,4145.

1
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America
. In:
Kohn
LT
,
Corrigan
JM
,
Donaldson
MS
, eds.
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System
.
Washington, DC
:
National Academy Press
;
2000
2
Lisby
M
,
Nielsen
LP
,
Brock
B
,
Mainz
J
.
How should medication errors be defined? Development and test of a definition.
Scand J Public Health
.
2012
;
40
(
2
):
203
210
[PubMed]
3
Stelfox
HT
,
Palmisani
S
,
Scurlock
C
,
Orav
EJ
,
Bates
DW
.
The “To Err is Human” report and the patient safety literature.
Qual Saf Health Care
.
2006
;
15
(
3
):
174
178
[PubMed]
4
Brenner
SK
,
Kaushal
R
,
Grinspan
Z
, et al
.
Effects of health information technology on patient outcomes: a systematic review.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
.
2016
;
23
(
5
):
1016
1036
[PubMed]
5
van Rosse
F
,
Maat
B
,
Rademaker
CMA
,
van Vught
AJ
,
Egberts
AC
,
Bollen
CW
.
The effect of computerized physician order entry on medication prescription errors and clinical outcome in pediatric and intensive care: a systematic review.
Pediatrics
.
2009
;
123
(
4
):
1184
1190
[PubMed]
6
Donaldson
LJ
,
Kelley
ET
,
Dhingra-Kumar
N
,
Kieny
M-P
,
Sheikh
A
.
Medication without harm: WHO’s third global patient safety challenge.
Lancet
.
2017
;
389
(
10080
):
1680
1681
[PubMed]
7
Aitken
M
,
Gorokhovich
L
. Advancing the responsible use of medicines: applying levers for change. Available at: . Accessed January 8, 2018
8
Jiménez Muñioz
AB
,
Muiño Miguez
A
,
Rodriguez Pérez
MP
,
Escribano
MD
,
Durán Garcia
ME
,
Sanjurjo Saez
M
.
Medication error prevalence.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur
.
2010
;
23
(
3
):
328
338
[PubMed]
9
Bates
DW
,
Boyle
DL
,
Vander Vliet
MB
,
Schneider
J
,
Leape
L
.
Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events.
J Gen Intern Med
.
1995
;
10
(
4
):
199
205
[PubMed]
10
Bates
DW
,
Cullen
DJ
,
Laird
N
, et al
.
Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention.
JAMA
.
1995
;
274
(
1
):
29
34
[PubMed]
11
Lehmann
CU
,
Kim
GR
.
Prevention of medication errors.
Clin Perinatol
.
2005
;
32
(
1
):
107
123, vii
[PubMed]
12
Kaushal
R
,
Bates
DW
,
Landrigan
C
, et al
.
Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients.
JAMA
.
2001
;
285
(
16
):
2114
2120
[PubMed]
13
Dedefo
MG
,
Mitike
AH
,
Angamo
MT
.
Incidence and determinants of medication errors and adverse drug events among hospitalized children in West Ethiopia.
BMC Pediatr
.
2016
;
16
:
81
14
Meyer-Massetti
C
,
Cheng
CM
,
Schwappach
DL
, et al
.
Systematic review of medication safety assessment methods.
Am J Health Syst Pharm
.
2011
;
68
(
3
):
227
240
15
Franklin
BD
,
Birch
S
,
Savage
I
, et al
.
Methodological variability in detecting prescribing errors and consequences for the evaluation of interventions.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
.
2009
;
18
(
11
):
992
999
[PubMed]
16
Westbrook
JI
,
Li
L
,
Lehnbom
EC
, et al
.
What are incident reports telling us? A comparative study at two Australian hospitals of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system.
Int J Qual Health Care
.
2015
;
27
(
1
):
1
9
17
Wells
GA
,
Shea
B
,
O’Connell
DP
, et al
. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available at: www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed August 7, 2017
18
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
. CASP cohort study checklist. Available at: www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists. Accessed August 5, 2017
19
Smyth
RMD
,
Gargon
E
,
Kirkham
J
, et al
.
Adverse drug reactions in children–a systematic review.
PLoS One
.
2012
;
7
(
3
):
e24061
[PubMed]
20
National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention
. Types of medication errors. Available at: www.nccmerp.org/types-medication-errors. Accessed January 5, 2018
21
Martinez-Anton
A
,
Sanchez
JI
,
Casanueva
L
.
Impact of an intervention to reduce prescribing errors in a pediatric intensive care unit.
Intensive Care Med
.
2012
;
38
(
9
):
1532
1538
[PubMed]
22
Morriss
FH
 Jr
,
Abramowitz
PW
,
Nelson
SP
, et al
.
Effectiveness of a barcode medication administration system in reducing preventable adverse drug events in a neonatal intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study.
J Pediatr
.
2009
;
154
(
3
):
363
368, 368.e1
[PubMed]
23
Glanzmann
C
,
Frey
B
,
Meier
CR
,
Vonbach
P
.
Analysis of medication prescribing errors in critically ill children.
Eur J Pediatr
.
2015
;
174
(
10
):
1347
1355
[PubMed]
24
Overhage
JM
,
Lukes
A
.
Practical, reliable, comprehensive method for characterizing pharmacists’ clinical activities.
Am J Health Syst Pharm
.
1999
;
56
(
23
):
2444
2450
25
Buckley
MS
,
Erstad
BL
,
Kopp
BJ
,
Theodorou
AA
,
Priestley
G
.
Direct observation approach for detecting medication errors and adverse drug events in a pediatric intensive care unit.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2007
;
8
(
2
):
145
152
[PubMed]
26
New South Wales Department of Health
.
Policy Directive: Incidence Management Policy
.
North Sydney, Australia
:
New South Wales Department of Health
;
2014
. Available at: http://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/ActivePDSDocuments/PD2014_004.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2018
27
Gazarian
M
,
Graudins
LV
.
Long-term reduction in adverse drug events: an evidence-based improvement model.
Pediatrics
.
2012
;
129
(
5
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/5/e1334
[PubMed]
28
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists
.
ASHP guidelines on preventing medication errors in hospitals.
Am J Hosp Pharm
.
1993
;
50
(
2
):
305
314
[PubMed]
29
Jain
S
,
Basu
S
,
Parmar
VR
.
Medication errors in neonates admitted in intensive care unit and emergency department.
Indian J Med Sci
.
2009
;
63
(
4
):
145
151
[PubMed]
30
Agarwal
S
,
Classen
D
,
Larsen
G
, et al
.
Prevalence of adverse events in pediatric intensive care units in the United States.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2010
;
11
(
5
):
568
578
[PubMed]
31
Barber
N
,
Franklin
BD
,
Cornford
T
,
Klecun
E
,
Savage
I
.
Safer, Faster, Better? Evaluating Electronic Prescribing: Report to the Patient Safety Research Programme
.
London, UK
:
Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health
;
2006
32
Campino
A
,
Lopez-Herrera
MC
,
Lopez-de-Heredia
I
,
Valls-I-Soler
A
.
Medication errors in a neonatal intensive care unit. Influence of observation on the error rate.
Acta Paediatr
.
2008
;
97
(
11
):
1591
1594
[PubMed]
33
Campino
A
,
Lopez-Herrera
MC
,
Lopez-de-Heredia
I
,
Valls-i-Soler
A
.
Educational strategy to reduce medication errors in a neonatal intensive care unit.
Acta Paediatr
.
2009
;
98
(
5
):
782
785
[PubMed]
34
Cimino
MA
,
Kirschbaum
MS
,
Brodsky
L
,
Shaha
SH
;
Child Health Accountability Initiative
.
Assessing medication prescribing errors in pediatric intensive care units.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2004
;
5
(
2
):
124
132
[PubMed]
35
Fortescue
EB
,
Kaushal
R
,
Landrigan
CP
, et al
.
Prioritizing strategies for preventing medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients.
Pediatrics
.
2003
;
111
(
4 pt 1
):
722
729
[PubMed]
36
Holdsworth
MT
,
Fichtl
RE
,
Behta
M
, et al
.
Incidence and impact of adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2003
;
157
(
1
):
60
65
[PubMed]
37
Holdsworth
MT
,
Fichtl
RE
,
Raisch
DW
, et al
.
Impact of computerized prescriber order entry on the incidence of adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients.
Pediatrics
.
2007
;
120
(
5
):
1058
1066
[PubMed]
38
Kunac
DL
,
Reith
DM
.
Preventable medication-related events in hospitalised children in New Zealand.
N Z Med J
.
2008
;
121
(
1272
):
17
32
[PubMed]
39
Marcin
JP
,
Dharmar
M
,
Cho
M
, et al;
Medication Errors Among Acutely Ill and Injured Children Treated in Rural Emergency Departments
.
Medication errors among acutely ill and injured children treated in rural emergency departments.
Ann Emerg Med
.
2007
;
50
(
4
):
361
367, 367.e1–e2
[PubMed]
40
Otero
P
,
Leyton
A
,
Mariani
G
,
Ceriani Cernadas
JM
;
Patient Safety Committee
.
Medication errors in pediatric inpatients: prevalence and results of a prevention program.
Pediatrics
.
2008
;
122
(
3
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/122/3/e737
[PubMed]
41
Sakuma
M
,
Ida
H
,
Nakamura
T
, et al
.
Adverse drug events and medication errors in Japanese paediatric inpatients: a retrospective cohort study.
BMJ Qual Saf
.
2014
;
23
(
10
):
830
837
[PubMed]
42
Stultz
JS
,
Porter
K
,
Nahata
MC
.
Sensitivity and specificity of dosing alerts for dosing errors among hospitalized pediatric patients.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
.
2014
;
21
(
e2
):
e219
e225
[PubMed]
43
Walsh
KE
,
Adams
WG
,
Bauchner
H
, et al
.
Medication errors related to computerized order entry for children.
Pediatrics
.
2006
;
118
(
5
):
1872
1879
[PubMed]
44
Wang
JK
,
Herzog
NS
,
Kaushal
R
,
Park
C
,
Mochizuki
C
,
Weingarten
SR
.
Prevention of pediatric medication errors by hospital pharmacists and the potential benefit of computerized physician order entry.
Pediatrics
.
2007
;
119
(
1
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/e77
[PubMed]
45
Kaushal
R
,
Bates
DW
,
Abramson
EL
,
Soukup
JR
,
Goldmann
DA
.
Unit-based clinical pharmacists’ prevention of serious medication errors in pediatric inpatients.
Am J Health Syst Pharm
.
2008
;
65
(
13
):
1254
1260
[PubMed]
46
Walsh
KE
,
Landrigan
CP
,
Adams
WG
, et al
.
Effect of computer order entry on prevention of serious medication errors in hospitalized children.
Pediatrics
.
2008
;
121
(
3
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/121/3/e421
[PubMed]
47
Benkirane
RR
,
Abouqal
R
,
Haimeur
CC
, et al
.
Incidence of adverse drug events and medication errors in intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study.
J Patient Saf
.
2009
;
5
(
1
):
16
22
[PubMed]
48
Morimoto
T
,
Sakuma
M
,
Matsui
K
, et al
.
Incidence of adverse drug events and medication errors in Japan: the JADE study.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2011
;
26
(
2
):
148
153
[PubMed]
49
Ghaleb
MA
,
Barber
N
,
Franklin
BD
,
Yeung
VW
,
Khaki
ZF
,
Wong
IC
.
Systematic review of medication errors in pediatric patients.
Ann Pharmacother
.
2006
;
40
(
10
):
1766
1776
[PubMed]
50
Snijders
C
,
van Lingen
RA
,
Molendijk
A
,
Fetter
WP
.
Incidents and errors in neonatal intensive care: a review of the literature.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
.
2007
;
92
(
5
):
F391
F398
[PubMed]
51
Stultz
JS
,
Nahata
MC
.
Computerized clinical decision support for medication prescribing and utilization in pediatrics.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
.
2012
;
19
(
6
):
942
953
[PubMed]
52
Abramson
EL
,
Kaushal
R
.
Computerized provider order entry and patient safety.
Pediatr Clin North Am
.
2012
;
59
(
6
):
1247
1255
[PubMed]
53
American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Clinical Information Technology Executive Committee, 2011–2012
.
Electronic prescribing in pediatrics: toward safer and more effective medication management [published correction appears in Pediatrics. 2013;132(1):179].
Pediatrics
.
2013
;
131
(
4
):
824
826
[PubMed]
54
Lehmann
CU
,
Kim
GR
.
Computerized provider order entry and patient safety.
Pediatr Clin North Am
.
2006
;
53
(
6
):
1169
1184
[PubMed]
55
Garfield
S
,
Reynolds
M
,
Dermont
L
,
Franklin
BD
.
Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review [published correction appears in Drug Saf. 2014;37(3):199].
Drug Saf
.
2013
;
36
(
12
):
1151
1157
[PubMed]
56
Naranjo
CA
,
Busto
U
,
Sellers
EM
, et al
.
A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions.
Clin Pharmacol Ther
.
1981
;
30
(
2
):
239
245
[PubMed]
57
Parry
G
,
Cline
A
,
Goldmann
D
.
Deciphering harm measurement.
JAMA
.
2012
;
307
(
20
):
2155
2156
[PubMed]
58
Bailey
C
,
Peddie
D
,
Wickham
ME
, et al
.
Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review.
Br J Clin Pharmacol
.
2016
;
82
(
1
):
17
29
[PubMed]
59
World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre
. The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardised case causality assessment. Available at: www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/WHOcausality_assessment.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2017
60
Koumpagioti
D
,
Varounis
C
,
Kletsiou
E
,
Nteli
C
,
Matziou
V
.
Evaluation of the medication process in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis.
J Pediatr (Rio J)
.
2014
;
90
(
4
):
344
355
[PubMed]
61
Berrier
K
.
Medication errors in outpatient pediatrics.
MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs
.
2016
;
41
(
5
):
280
286
[PubMed]
62
Kaushal
R
,
Goldmann
DA
,
Keohane
CA
, et al
.
Adverse drug events in pediatric outpatients.
Ambul Pediatr
.
2007
;
7
(
5
):
383
389
63
Zandieh
SO
,
Goldmann
DA
,
Keohane
CA
,
Yoon
C
,
Bates
DW
,
Kaushal
R
.
Risk factors in preventable adverse drug events in pediatric outpatients.
J Pediatr
.
2008
;
152
(
2
):
225
231
[PubMed]

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Supplementary data