↓ Skip to main content

Incidence and Severity of Prescribing Errors in Parenteral Nutrition for Pediatric Inpatients at a Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Incidence and Severity of Prescribing Errors in Parenteral Nutrition for Pediatric Inpatients at a Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa Hermanspann, Mark Schoberer, Eva Robel-Tillig, Christoph Härtel, Rangmar Goelz, Thorsten Orlikowsky, Albrecht Eisert

Abstract

Pediatric inpatients are particularly vulnerable to medication errors (MEs), especially in highly individualized preparations like parenteral nutrition (PN). Aside from prescribing via a computerized physician order entry system (CPOE), we evaluated the effect of cross-checking by a clinical pharmacist to prevent harm from PN order errors in a neonatal and pediatric intensive care unit (NICU/PICU). The incidence of prescribing errors in PN in a tertiary level NICU/PICU was surveyed prospectively between March 2012 and July 2013 (n = 3,012 orders). A pharmacist cross-checked all PN orders prior to preparation. Errors were assigned to seven different error-type categories. Three independent experts from different academic tertiary level NICUs judged the severity of each error according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) Index (categories A-I). The error rate was 3.9% for all 3,012 orders (118 prescribing errors in 111 orders). 77 (6.0%, 1,277 orders) errors occurred in the category concentration range, all concerning a relative overdose of calcium gluconate for peripheral infusion. The majority of all events (60%) were assigned to categories C and D (without major harmful consequences) while 28% could not be assigned due to missing majority decision. Potential harmful consequences requiring interventions (category E) could have occurred in 12% of assessments. Next to systematic application of clinical guidelines and prescribing via CPOE, order review by a clinical pharmacist is still required to effectively reduce MEs and thus to prevent minor and major adverse drug events with the aim to enhance medication safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 23 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Engineering 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,177,189
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#710
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,999
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#14
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.