Evaluation of medication error rates in Saudi Arabia: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Ziyad S. Almalki
  • , Nasser Alqahtani
  • , Najwa Tayeb Salway
  • , Mona Marzoq Alharbi
  • , Abdulhadi Alqahtani
  • , Nawaf Alotaibi
  • , Tahani M. Alotaibi
  • , Tahani Alshammari
  • , Jimmy Efird

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction:Due to the diversity of reports and on the rates of medications errors (MEs) in Saudi Arabia, we performed the first meta-analysis to determine the rate of medications errors in Saudi Arabia using meta-analysis in the hospital settings.Methods:We conducted a systematic literature search through August 2019 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify all observational studies conducted in hospital settings in Saudi Arabia that reported the rate of MEs. A random-effects models were used to calculate overall MEs, as well as prescribing, dispensing, and administration error rates. The I2statistics were used to analyze heterogeneity.Results:Sixteen articles were included in this search. The total incidence of MEs in Saudi Arabia hospitals was estimated at 44.4%. Prescribing errors, dispensing errors, and adminstration errors incidents represent 40.2%, 28.2%, and 34.5% out of the total number of reported MEs, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally found to be >90% (I-squared statistic).Conclusions:This study demonstrates the MEs common in health facilities. Additional efforts in the field are needed to improve medication management systems in order to prevent patient harm incidents.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E24956
JournalMedicine (United States)
Volume100
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - 5 Mar 2021

Keywords

  • Saudi Arabia
  • administration error
  • dispensing error
  • medication errors
  • prescribing error

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of medication error rates in Saudi Arabia: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this