A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of a Double Check on the Detection of Medication Errors

Amy M. Douglass, Joshua W Elder, Robin Watson, Tom Kallay, David Kirsh, William G. Robb, Amy H. Kaji, Clinton J. Coil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. Methods Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. Results Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)74-82.e1
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume71
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Medication Errors
Randomized Controlled Trials
Nurses
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Weights and Measures
Hospital Emergency Service

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of a Double Check on the Detection of Medication Errors. / Douglass, Amy M.; Elder, Joshua W; Watson, Robin; Kallay, Tom; Kirsh, David; Robb, William G.; Kaji, Amy H.; Coil, Clinton J.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 71, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 74-82.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Douglass, Amy M. ; Elder, Joshua W ; Watson, Robin ; Kallay, Tom ; Kirsh, David ; Robb, William G. ; Kaji, Amy H. ; Coil, Clinton J. / A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of a Double Check on the Detection of Medication Errors. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 71, No. 1. pp. 74-82.e1.
@article{d2c28383ff3e4aa0b11e45d3a3219148,
title = "A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of a Double Check on the Detection of Medication Errors",
abstract = "Study objective The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. Methods Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. Results Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9{\%} of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33{\%} of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95{\%} confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100{\%} of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95{\%} confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error.",
author = "Douglass, {Amy M.} and Elder, {Joshua W} and Robin Watson and Tom Kallay and David Kirsh and Robb, {William G.} and Kaji, {Amy H.} and Coil, {Clinton J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "74--82.e1",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of a Double Check on the Detection of Medication Errors

AU - Douglass, Amy M.

AU - Elder, Joshua W

AU - Watson, Robin

AU - Kallay, Tom

AU - Kirsh, David

AU - Robb, William G.

AU - Kaji, Amy H.

AU - Coil, Clinton J.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Study objective The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. Methods Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. Results Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error.

AB - Study objective The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. Methods Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. Results Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021386482&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021386482&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.022

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 28669554

AN - SCOPUS:85021386482

VL - 71

SP - 74-82.e1

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 1

ER -