Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prescribing errors in post - COVID-19 patients: prevalence, severity, and risk factors in patients visiting a post - COVID-19 outpatient clinic

BMC Emergency Medicine volume 22, Article number: 35 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has necessitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identified as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescribing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post–COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3 months after discharge.

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3 months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs.

Results

Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identified PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identified ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16–17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34–21.5) as independent risk factors for PEs.

Conclusions

PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID-19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.

Peer Review reports

Key messages

  • What is the key question?

What are the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for prescribing errors in post - COVID-19 patients?

  • What is the bottom line?

Prescribing errors occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. These errors can lead to adverse drug events, resulting in medication-related harm and even hospital (re)admissions.

Identified risk factors for prescribing errors are ICU admission and a medical history of COPD / asthma. These risk factors should be used to identify high-risk patients and to develop targeted interventions.

  • Why read on?

Risk factors for prescribing errors identified in a non-pandemic situation are not always relevant in a pandemic. We provide an overview of how the changing circumstances in a pandemic influence in-hospital prescribing, and what the consequences are for patients and medication safety.

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. In the Netherlands, the first case was confirmed on February 27, 2020 and thereafter the original Wuhan Hu-1 strain of SARS-CoV-2 spread rapidly throughout the country [1, 2]. This led to a sudden, sharp increase in the number of patients in acute need of hospitalization [3]. In order to manage, hospital services were reorganized – regular care was scaled down, clinical wards were separated into non-, suspected, and proven COVID-19 units, and intensive care unit (ICU) capacity was increased. Healthcare professionals from all medical specialties and levels of experience joined the frontline to provide COVID-19 care [4]. The novelty of COVID-19 meant that it was not clear how to treat the disease [5,6,7]. Intense efforts to learn about the pathophysiology of COVID-19 [8] resulted in the use and subsequent disuse of various medical treatments [9,10,11] and to rapidly changing guidelines on disease management.

Prescribing medication beyond the prescriber’s expertise, insufficient prescribing skills, a demanding work environment, rapidly changing guidelines, a high turnover of patients and doctors, and multiple transfers of care are associated with prescribing errors (PEs) [12,13,14,15,16,17], leading to adverse drug events (ADEs) [18]) [19] and potentially medication-related harm and hospital (re)admission [20]. In times of scarce hospital capacity and resources, such as during a pandemic, this can put extra pressure on already overstretched hospital services. We hypothesized that hospitalized COVID-19 patients were at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in medication-related harm requiring additional care. We therefore determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in COVID-19 patients 3 months after they had been discharged from hospital during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 in the Netherlands, when they attended a post COVID-19 outpatient clinic (PCOC). Such information obtained during a pandemic can be used to develop management strategies to cope with new waves of COVID-19 or other pandemics [21].

Methods

Study design and setting

This prospective observational single center cohort study was performed following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement (Table S1). Longitudinal analysis was performed to evaluate pharmacotherapeutic care during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Amsterdam UMC - location VUmc, a 733-bed academic hospital in the Netherlands accredited by the Joint Commission International. The hospital has an active, multidisciplinary Medication Committee, consisting of medical safety officers from various backgrounds and a multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy team [12, 22], that monitors medication safety in daily in-hospital practice.

The Medical Ethics Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC – location VUmc approved the study procedures (no. 2021.0090).

Participants & general PCOC procedures

Patients were considered eligible if they were hospitalized in Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, between March 1 and July 1 2020 for i) COVID-19 or ii) other reasons and developed COVID-19 during hospitalization and were scheduled for a PCOC appointment between June 1 and October 12,020.

Approximately 6 weeks after discharge, all post – COVID-19 patients were contacted by telephone by a pulmonologist and invited to come to the PCOC if they had not fully recovered, if their SARS-CoV-2 infection had required ICU admission, or if they had had a venous thromboembolic event (VTE). All PCOC appointments were scheduled approximately 3 months after discharge (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of patient journey of COVID-19 patients at Amsterdam UMC and the intervention of the Pharmacotherapy team. Six weeks after hospital discharge (T = 6 weeks), telephonic triage by a pulmonologist took place to determine if follow up was necessary at the post – COVID-19 outpatient clinic of Amsterdam UMC location VUmc (PCOC), planned approximately 3 months after hospital discharge (T ≈ 3 months). CMA: consensus medication list at admission at Amsterdam UMC location VUmc. In case patient was transferred from another hospital, the information from the transfer letter was included in the CMA; CMD: consensus medication list at discharge from Amsterdam UMC location VUmc (T = 0); CMP: consensus medication list at PCOC (T = approximately 3 months after hospital discharge)

Full size image

Before the PCOC appointment, patients had a full blood screen, pulmonary function tests, an electrocardiogram (ECG), and a chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and were asked to fill out questionnaires that asked questions about physical functioning, nutrition, and cognition. The outcomes of these questionnaires were outside the scope of this study. During the PCOC visit, patients were assessed by a physical therapist and a pulmonologist. A multidisciplinary pharmacotherapeutic stewardship team (MP-team) reviewed each patient’s medication use. The MP-team consisted of a junior medical doctor and junior pharmacist, supported by a medical student and supervised by an internist and a hospital pharmacist some of whom were training to be clinical pharmacologists.

Data collection

Definitions

A PE was defined based on the definition of Dean et al. [23] and included two subtypes: inappropriate prescriptions and unintentional drug discrepancies [24] (Table 1). Unintentional drug discrepancies were subsequently categorized in 4 subcategories, covering ‘unintentional initiation of a drug’, ‘unintentional omission of a drug’, ‘unintentional switch of a drug within the same Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) group’, and ‘unintentional change of a drug dosage’ (Table 1).

Table 1 Definitions
Full size table

Inappropriate prescriptions were determined based on adherence to local-, national- (e.g. The Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association database (‘KNMP Kennisbank’.)), or international evidence-based guidelines. COVID-19 medication management was assessed according to local and national guidelines. Deviations from these evidence-based guidelines with pathophysiological and/or evidence-based arguments recorded in the patient’s medical record were not considered as inappropriate. Inappropriate prescriptions were categorized based on the core outcome set for appropriate medication use of Spinewine et al. [26], including ‘medication overuse’, ‘medication underuse’, ‘potentially inappropriate medications’, and ‘clinically significant drug-drug interactions’ (Table 1).

Procedure

Up to 2 weeks before the scheduled PCOC appointment, information on patient characteristics and medication use (both at hospital admission and hospital discharge) was collected by the MP-team, using a standard form (Table S2). Subsequently, eligible patients were contacted by telephone for a medication interview.

If the medication interview and subsequent assessment could not be completed, patients were scheduled for a face-to-face consultation with a member of the MP-team during their PCOC visit. Patients were excluded from analysis if they did not have a medication interview or if they did not show up for their PCOC appointment. One week before the patient’s scheduled PCOC appointment, a multidisciplinary consensus meeting, attended by members of the MP-team plus a rotating fellow in clinical pharmacy, was held to discuss the data collected and to establish a consensus medication list at admission (CMA), a consensus medication list at discharge (CMD), and a consensus medication list at time of the PCOC visit (Fig. 1), based on information from the patient’s community pharmacist’s records, the admission letter, transfer letter (if applicable), discharge letter to the general practitioner, and the medication interview. PEs were identified by determining the presence of inappropriate prescriptions at the time of the PCOC visit, and unintentional drug discrepancies introduced between hospital admission and hospital discharge, and between hospital discharge and the PCOC visit.

Any identified PEs and subsequent suggestions for medication optimization were recorded in the electronic patient record and communicated to the pulmonologists of the PCOC. The pulmonologist decided whether these suggestions were to be implemented directly during the patient’s PCOC visit or subsequently by the patient’s general practitioner (via a letter sent after patient’s PCOC visit), or whether they were to be rejected.

After a patient’s PCOC visit, a second consensus meeting was held, attended by all members of the MP-team, to assess 1) the moment when the PE was introduced (before, during or after COVID-19 – related hospitalization); 2) if the PE resulted in patient harm according to the European Medicine Agency (EMA) classification tool [27] (Fig. S1), and, if applicable, the severity of the PE, according to the index of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) [28], specifically NCC MERP categories E - I (Table S3). This assessment was done based on all data collected by the MP-team, the pulmonologist, and physical therapist during the PCOC visit. All data were recorded in a password-protected electronic case report form (eCRF) (Castor EDC).

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the total number of PEs identified at the time of the PCOC visit. Secondary outcomes were the severity, risk factors for, and the number of PEs made during and after COVID-19-related hospitalization.

Data analysis and statistical methods

Variables are described in terms of frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and median values (interquartile range (IQR) and range) for non-normally distributed continuous variables.

Risk factors for the presence of ≥1 PE at the time of the PCOC visit were identified by univariate analysis. The association between dichotomous risk factors and each of the outcome measures was investigated with the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test (in case of < 10 patients with at least one PE). Logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between continuous risk factors and each outcome measure. After the identification of individual risk factors associated with PEs, a multivariable logistic regression model was built, using a forward selection procedure, to identify independent risk factors for each outcome measure. Risk factors with a p-value < 0.1 in the univariate analyses were preselected for the multivariable model. The p-value for inclusion in the final multivariable model was set at 0.05. All analyses were carried out with SPSS 26 for Windows statistical software.

Study size

Owing to the limited number of patients scheduled for a PCOC appointment, a post-hoc power analysis based on a power of 80%, a type 1 error (α) of 5%, was performed to test the reliability of multivariable analysis.

Results

Between July 1 and October 12,020, 102 patients had a PCOC appointment. Four patients were excluded from analysis: two patients were not available for the medication interview, and did not come to their appointment and two patients were not sufficiently fluent in Dutch for a reliable medication interview, such that a face-to-face consultation was necessary, but the patients did not come to their appointment. Ninety-eight patients were included in this analysis (Table 2).

Table 2 Patient characteristics
Full size table

Participant characteristics

At admission, the median age was 61 (IQR 50.5–70.3; range 18–86) years, 67% were male, the median BMI was 27.3 (IQR 24.6–30.1), and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 2 (IQR 1–3; range 0–6). Twenty-seven patients (28%) had been transferred from another hospital to Amsterdam UMC – location VUmc. Medication reconciliation was performed for 7 patients (7%) at hospital admission. The median number of prescriptions according to the consensus medication list at admission was 3.0 (IQR 1.0–6.0). Most patients (n = 87; 89%) lived at home without professional care prior to hospitalization (Table 2).

Included patients had been hospitalized for a median of 8.5 days (range 1.0–70.0 days). Of these patients, 36 (37%) had been admitted to the ICU during hospitalization, for a e median of 12 days (range 1–61 days). Reported complications during COVID-19 hospitalization were mainly delirium (22%), pulmonary embolism (18%), or an infection other than SARS-CoV-19 (11%) (Table 2).

The median number of prescriptions according to the consensus medication list at discharge was 5.0 (IQR 3.0–9.0). At discharge, 55 (56%) patients returned home without professional care, whereas 32 patients (33%) were discharged temporarily to a rehabilitation center (Table 2).

The median (range) time between hospital discharge and the PCOC visit was 120.5 (61.0–210.0) days. The median number of prescribed drugs in the consensus medication list at time of the PCOC visit was 3.5 (IQR 1.0–7.0; range 0–19) and the number of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs used according to patients was 0 (IQR 0–1.0; range 0–8). At time of the PCOC visit, 84 patients (86%) lived at home without professional care (Table 2).

Prevalence, severity, and risk factors for prescribing errors and when these errors were made

In total, 139 PEs, affecting 90 patients (92%), were identified at the time of the PCOC visit – 67 inappropriate medications (48%; N = 139) and 72 unintentional drug discrepancies (52%) (Table 3). The drugs most-often associated with a PE were those for acid-related disorders (ATC code A02) due to ‘overuse’, meaning prescribed or maintained without an appropriate medical indication (Table S5).

Table 3 Prevalence and severity of prescribing errors identified from pharmacotherapeutic assessment
Full size table

Sixteen PEs (12%; N = 139), affecting eight patients (8%), resulted in patient harm according to the EMA classification. Three patients had more than one PE resulting in harm. The severity of these 16 PEs was categorized as NCC MERP E, meaning that the PEs may have contributed to temporary patient harm and required an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent deterioration [28] (Table S3). Examples of PEs and their severity are presented in Table S4. None of the PEs resulting in patient harm involved drugs prescribed for acid-related disorders (ATC code A02) or vitamins (ATC code A11) (Table S5).

Most (45%; N = 139) of the identified PEs occurred between hospital admission and discharge; 23% occurred between hospital discharge and the PCOC visit. Thus 32% of the identified PEs, all categorized as inappropriate medications, were present before hospitalization (Table 3).

Of the PEs made between hospital admission and discharge, 11 (8%) caused harm in five patients (5%) (Table 3); 4 of the PEs made between hospital discharge and the PCOC visit caused harm in three patients (3%). Thus only 1 PE that caused patient harm was made before COVID-19-related hospitalization.

Univariate analysis identified risk factors associated with PEs made between hospital admission and discharge and/or between hospital discharge and PCOC visit (Table S6): ICU admission during hospitalization (p < 0.001), a medical history of COPD or asthma (p = 0.005), and a medical history of hypertension (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that ICU admission during COVID-19 hospitalization and a medical history of COPD / asthma were risk factors for the identified PEs (odds ratio (OR) 6.08, 95% CI, 2.16–17.09, and OR 5.36, 95% CI, 1.34–21.5, respectively) (Fig. 2; Table S6). Our sample achieves 91% to detect an OR of 6.08 for ICU admission and 65% power to detect and OR of 5.36 for a medical history of COPD / asthma as risk factors for potentially harmful PEs, suggesting that findings were reliable.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Results of multivariate analysis determining risk factors associated with prescribing errors (PEs) during the course of COVID-19 hospitalization

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated medication safety during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by determining the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs detected approximately 3 months after COVID-19-related hospitalization. PEs were found in the medication lists of most of the patients (92%) who came to the PCOC. Sixteen PEs that caused patient harm were identified in the medication lists of eight patients and necessitated a change in therapy. We hypothesized that hospitalized COVID-19 patients were at risk of PEs due to the novelty of the disease and rapidly changing management guidelines [5,6,7]. Study of the pathophysiology of COVID-19 [8] led to the rise and fall of medication therapies to treat COVID-19, for example remdesivir [9, 29], (hydroxy)chloroquine in combination with azitromycin [10, 30], ritonavir combined with lopinavir (Kaletra®) [31] and corticosteroids [8, 11]. Interestingly, none of the PEs identified in this study concerned these drugs or drug classes.

Several classes of drugs for which PEs were made and identified in current study are not considered high-risk medications [32]. In total, 20.4% of PEs concerned PPIs (ATC-code A02B). These drugs were often prescribed without an appropriate medical indication. Deprescribing [33] should be attempted to avoid long-term inappropriate use, which can give rise to Clostridium difficile infections [34,35,36,37] or increased fracture risk [38, 39]. The prescription of vitamins, for example colecalciferol (ATC code A11CC05), was also associated with PEs. In this case, the lack of prescription of colecalciferol could lead to suboptimal treatment of osteoporosis and fracture risk [40]. Other drug classes associated with PEs were agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system (ATC-code C09) and antithrombotic agents (ATC-code B01). These drugs were previously considered high-risk medications [32], for example, causing hypotension resulting in collapse, and bleeding, or thromboembolic events. However, it should be borne in mind that, depending on patient characteristics and time, all PEs have the ability to cause patient harm. Therefore, timely identification and prevention of medication-related harm is crucial.

This study shows that the majority of the PEs identified were made during COVID-19 hospitalization. A PCOC visit provides the opportunity to identify PEs, thereby potentially reducing the risk of medication-related harm, emergency department visits, or (re)hospitalization [41]. Ideally, the medication of all patients should be reviewed for appropriateness, which would circumvent these problems and prevent the transmural transfer of PEs [42, 43]. We showed that an ICU admission during hospitalization and a medical history of COPD / asthma are independent risk factors for PEs. These findings can be used to identify in high-risk patients and implement targeted interventions.

That ICU admission was an independent risk factor for PEs is consistent with findings from before the pandemic [13]. ICU admission involves the transfer of care, which introduces the risk of incomplete transfer of information, resulting in changes in prescribed medication [13, 44,45,46,47]. It often necessitates the deliberate (temporary) discontinuation of (chronic) medication, resulting in a risk of medication omission at ICU discharge. Moreover, medication is often prescribed for ICU-specific indications, such as edema, infections, delirium, and cardiac disorders, often for temporary use [45,46,47]. Patients admitted to the ICU are prescribed twice the amount of medication prescribed to patients not admitted to the ICU [48]. Studies have shown that the absolute number of medications is a risk for medication-related harm [49, 50].

An additional problem is that, during the pandemic, the sharp increase in patients resulted in understaffing. To meet the demand, healthcare professionals from various specialties joined the frontline [4] and were expected to prescribe and decide over pharmacotherapeutic therapy beyond their own medical expertise. Inadequate and incomplete transfer of information on medication therapy would make it difficult hamper the identification of PEs.

In the absence of medication reconciliation [25], there was often inadequate information on the medications used before hospitalization. Medical treatment of COPD / asthma often involves at least one inhalational drug. In the admission letters analyzed, the name of the drug was replaced by the drug class (e.g. ‘inhalation medication’) or drug form (‘inhalator’) without specification of the dosage or dosage frequency. This probably explains why a medical history of COPD or asthma was a significant risk factor for PEs in COVID-19 patients.

Several studies, carried out before the pandemic, have focused on medication safety, but these used different definitions of PEs, which makes comparison difficult. The study of O’Riordan et al. [51] used the same definition for PEs [23] as we used and had a similar study design and method. These authors identified post-discharge PEs in 36 of 83 included patients, with unintentional drug omissions being the most common type of PE. In contrast, we found a much higher proportion of patients with PEs, with unintentional initiation of medication being the most common type of PE. The latter was possibly due to medication intended for temporary use, for example during ICU admission, not being discontinued at discharge.

We found that although patients who visited the PCOC were prescribed relatively few medicines, there were still almost 1.5 PE per patient identified. An earlier study from our group, performed before the pandemic, found a higher number of drugs prescribed per patient but an almost equal number of PEs per patient [12]. Thus our current findings appear to contradict an earlier observation that the number of prescribed drugs is associated with medication-related patient harm due to PEs [49].

Our findings also support the idea that the circumstances surrounding in-hospital prescribing changed during the pandemic, such that risk factors for PEs identified before the pandemic might not be applicable for risk stratification during a pandemic.

Limitations and strengths

We believe this study has some major strengths. Firstly, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the quality of pharmacotherapeutic care provided during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Secondly, almost all patients scheduled for follow-up at the PCOC were included in this analysis. Thus results provide a realistic representation of potentially avoidable medication-related harm in times of a pandemic. Lastly, evaluation of the inappropriate prescriptions and discrepancies in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting provides a more balanced interpretation of the prevalence and severity of PEs and insight into in-hospital prescribing during a pandemic.

This study had some limitations. Firstly, the medication review was performed 3 months after hospital discharge. At that moment, assessment was thus dependent on the written communication available. If there was insufficient contextual information, someof the discrepancies identified may have been classified as ‘intentional’ and not identified as a PE. This means that the actual number of PEs in this cohort may have been higher than we reported. Secondly, our analysis included only patients who required follow-up and who came to the PCOC. Thus not all post-COVID-19 patients were included in this analysis, such as patients without complications during COVID-19-related hospitalization, patients not attending their appointment, and those who died before the PCOC visit. Therefore, the results of this study are not generalizable to all (post -)COVID-19 patients. Future research should involve all (post-)COVID-19 patients to determine the effectiveness of the suggested risk stratification.

Conclusion

More than 90% of the post-COVID-19 patients in this study had ≥1 PE, 3 months after discharge and more than 8% required an immediate change in medication therapy (intervention) because of harm. ICU admission and a medical history of COPD or asthma were identified as independent risk factors for PEs. This is the first comprehensive investigation of PEs during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. PEs are an unanticipated challenge during a pandemic and can put extra pressure on already overstretched hospital services, especially when these errors give rise to patient harm. Further research should focus on interventions to prevent and reduce PEs. For example, whether a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship team, which could use the suggested risk stratification to identify high risk patients; review medication and; suggest modifications before hospital discharge, can reduce PEs and subsequent patient harm.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) - Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Patient with novel coronavirus COVID-19 in the Netherlands: http://www.rivm.nl/en/news/patient-with-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-in-netherlands.

  2. Caniels TG, et al. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern evade humoral immune responses from infection and vaccination. Sci Adv. 2021;7:eabj5365.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Worldometer. COVID Live. 2021. Update - accessed 14 Oct 2020.

  4. Cram P, Anderson ML, Shaughnessy EE. All hands on deck: learning to “un-specialize” in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu D, Wu T, Liu Q, Yang Z. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: what we know. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:44–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cao Y, Liu X, Xiong L, Cai K. Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020;92:1449–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang L, Wang Y, Ye D, Liu Q. Review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) based on current evidence. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55:105948.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiersinga WJ, Rhodes A, Cheng AC, Peacock SJ, Prescott HC. Pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a review. Jama. 2020;324:782–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Benfield T, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19—final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;10.

  10. Peters EJ, et al. Outcomes of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitals with and without standard treatment with (hydroxy) chloroquine. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020.

  11. Horby, P. & Landrain, M. Low-cost dexamethasone reduces death by up to one third in hospitalised patients with severe respiratory complications of COVID-19. RECOVERY Trial Press Release Available at: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-16-low-cost-dexamethasone-reduces-death-one-thirdhospitalised-patients-severe Accessed 5 July 2020 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mahomedradja RF, et al. The pharmacotherapy team: A novel strategy to improve appropriate in‐hospital prescribing using a participatory intervention action method. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(2):565-76.

  13. Bell CM, et al. Association of ICU or hospital admission with unintentional discontinuation of medications for chronic diseases. Jama. 2011;306:840–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Merten H, Van Galen LS, Wagner C. Safe handover. BMJ. 2017;359:j4328.

  15. Lesar TS, Briceland L, Stein DS. Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA. 1997;277:312–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aronson JK, Henderson G, Webb DJ, Rawlins MD. A prescription for better prescribing: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tully MP. Prescribing errors in hospital practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74:668–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Alqenae F, Steinke D, Keers R. Prevalence and nature of medication errors and medication related harm immediately following hospital discharge from hospital to community settings: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019;28:4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bates DW, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events: implications for prevention. Jama. 1995;274:29–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Assiri GA, et al. What is the epidemiology of medication errors, error-related adverse events and risk factors for errors in adults managed in community care contexts? A systematic review of the international literature. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Deana C, et al. Learning from the Italian experience during COVID-19 pandemic waves: be prepared and mind some crucial aspects. Acta Bio Med Atenei Parmensis. 2021;92.

  22. Meeting the pharmacotherapy team of Amsterdam UMC. Amsterdam UMC, YouTube, 2019.

  23. Dean B, Barber N, Schachter M. What is a prescribing error? BMJ Qual Saf. 2000;9:232–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pippins JR, et al. Classifying and predicting errors of inpatient medication reconciliation. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1414–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Daliri S, et al. The effect of a pharmacy-led transitional care program on medication-related problems post-discharge: a before—after prospective study. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Beuscart J-B, et al. International core outcome set for clinical trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy. BMC Med. 2018;16:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Good practice guide on recording, coding, reporting and assessment of medication errors (ed. Committee, PRA) (European Medicine Agency). 2015.

  28. Hartwig SC, Denger SD, Schneider PJ. Severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1991;48:2611–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grein J, et al. Compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2327–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gautret P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56:105949.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Horby PW, et al. Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1345–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Saedder EA, Brock B, Nielsen LP, Bonnerup DK, Lisby M. Identifying high-risk medication: a systematic literature review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70:637–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Long J, Hilmer S. A systematic review of the emerging definition of ‘deprescribing’with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:1254–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Howell MD, et al. Iatrogenic gastric acid suppression and the risk of nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:784–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dial S, Alrasadi K, Manoukian C, Huang A, Menzies D. Risk of Clostridium difficile diarrhea among hospital inpatients prescribed proton pump inhibitors: cohort and case–control studies. Cmaj. 2004;171:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Leonard J, Marshall JK, Moayyedi P. Systematic review of the risk of enteric infection in patients taking acid suppression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2047–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, Singh S, Cavallazzi R, Loke YK. Risk ofClostridium difficileInfection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: Meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1011–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kwok CS, Yeong JK-Y, Loke YK. Meta-analysis: risk of fractures with acid-suppressing medication. Bone. 2011;48:768–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ngamruengphong S, Leontiadis GI, Radhi S, Dentino A, Nugent K. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1209–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ross AC, et al. The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: what clinicians need to know. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:53–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mueller SK, Sponsler KC, Kripalani S, Schnipper JL. Hospital-based medication reconciliation practices: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1057–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Wong JD, et al. Medication reconciliation at hospital discharge: evaluating discrepancies. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:1373–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Poole DL, Chainakul JN, Pearson M, Graham L. Medication reconciliation: a necessity in promoting a safe hospital discharge. J Healthc Qual. 2006;28:12–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brown KN, et al. Transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre textual analysis of physician progress notes. Crit Care. 2018;22:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bravo PH. Study finds medication errors common after intensive care unit transfer. Evid Based Nurs, ebnurs-2019-103133. 2019.

  46. Moyen E, Camiré E, Stelfox HT. Clinical review: medication errors in critical care. Crit Care. 2008;12:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tully AP, Hammond DA, Li C, Jarrell AS, Kruer RM. Evaluation of medication errors at the transition of care from an ICU to non-ICU location. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cullen DJ, Sweitzer BJ, Bates DW, Burdick E, Edmondson A, Leape LL. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative study of intensive care and general care units. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1289–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Saedder EA, Lisby M, Nielsen LP, Bonnerup DK, Brock B. Number of drugs most frequently found to be independent risk factors for serious adverse reactions: a systematic literature review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:808–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith JW, SEIDL, L.G. & CLUFF, L.E. Studies on the epidemiology of adverse drug reactions: V. clinical factors influencing susceptibility. Ann Intern Med. 1966;65:629–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. O’Riordan C, Delaney T, Grimes T. Exploring discharge prescribing errors and their propagation post-discharge: an observational study. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:1172–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all colleagues of the post - COVID-19 outpatient clinical and the members of the Amsterdam UMC Post COVID-19 study group, in particular Illaa Smesseim and Rosalie Huijsman, for their collaboration. We also would like to thank all participating fellows clinical pharmacy, Roland van den Berg; Anouk Braam; Bojan Nicolik; Mirjam Slijkhuis for their participation in the weekly meetings. Finally, this study was a project initiated within the Medication Committee of Amsterdam UMC. We are grateful to all members for supporting this project and our team.

Author contribution statement

 

Mahomedradja

van den Beukel

van den Bos

Lissenberg-Witte

Wang

Kalverda-Mooij

Nossent

Kuijvenhoven

Tichelaar

Sigaloff

Muller

Agtmael

Study conception and design

X

X

   

X

      

Acquisition of data

X

X

X

 

X

X

 

X

    

Analysis and interpretation of data

X

X

X

X

        

Drafting of manuscript

X

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

  

Critical revision

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Funding

This project was funded by the Medication Committee of the Amsterdam UMC.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rashudy F. Mahomedradja and Tessa O. van den Beukel contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rashudy F. Mahomedradja, Tessa O. van den Beukel, Maaike van den Bos, Steven Wang, Kim C. E. Sigaloff, Jelle Tichelaar & Michiel A. van Agtmael

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Research and Expertise Center in Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rashudy F. Mahomedradja, Steven Wang, Jelle Tichelaar & Michiel A. van Agtmael

  3. Department of Internal Medicine, Geriatric Medicine Section, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Institute, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Tessa O. van den Beukel & Majon Muller

  4. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location AMC and location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kirsten A. Kalverda & Esther J. Nossent

  5. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte

  6. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marianne A. Kuijvenhoven

  7. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kim C. E. Sigaloff

Authors
  1. Rashudy F. Mahomedradja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tessa O. van den Beukel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maaike van den Bos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kirsten A. Kalverda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marianne A. Kuijvenhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Esther J. Nossent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Majon Muller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kim C. E. Sigaloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jelle Tichelaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Michiel A. van Agtmael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.M., T.vd.B., M.vd.B, S.W., K.K., E.N., B.L-W., M.K., E.N., M.M., K.S., J.T., M.v.A. wrote the manuscript; R.M., T.vd.B., K.K. designed the research; R.M., T.vd.B., M.vd.B, S.W., K.K., B.L-W., M.K., performed the research; R.M., T.vd.B., M.vd.B, K.K., B.L-W. analyzed the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript. The authors confirm that the Principal Investigator for this paper is Michiel van Agtmael. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rashudy F. Mahomedradja.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study and all its methods were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Medical Ethics Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC – location VUmc approved the study procedures (no. 2021.0090).

This study was conducted to evaluate and improve medication safety in a novel patient population of post – COVID-19 patients. Critical assessment of their medication, resulting in detection and reduction of medication-related harm by a multidisciplinary Pharmacotherapy team was the standard of care of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc’s post - COVID-19 outpatient clinic with no (additional) burden for patients. The results were used to improve medication safety for patients currently recovering or who had recovered from COVID-19 and future patients. Under Dutch law, and approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC – location VUmc, it was not required to obtain informed consent from subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahomedradja, R.F., van den Beukel, T.O., van den Bos, M. et al. Prescribing errors in post - COVID-19 patients: prevalence, severity, and risk factors in patients visiting a post - COVID-19 outpatient clinic. BMC Emerg Med 22, 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-00588-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-00588-7

Keywords

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us