PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Medication Errors”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1979

Pharmacology program produces results.

A traditional inservice pharmacology program presented problems for the participants, educators, and head nurses and, despite the program, a significant number of medication errors occurred. A new program, based on principles of adult education, has had positive effects on patient care and is viewed favorably by educators and participants. The results suggest that competency-based education in other areas could have similar benefits.

Curriculum↗
PubMed1976

[Mistakes, errors and their prevention in the medical expertise about accidental injuries].

It may be stated that in the examination of the individuals who had suffered an accident, as well as in the assessment of the subsequent consequences--for whatever authority (social assurance, court of justice, State Insurance Company) the medical opinion is given--various errors may be committed, which may direct the claim for indemnity in a faulty way and may endanger also the medical competence of the expert opinion. The medical, social, legal and economical relationships of these errors have repeatedly been pointed out by the authors. Neither the patient nor the community may suffer a loss or injury merely by the reason that the medical expert's skill was defective regarding the medical expert's work. The aim of the authors' paper is to through a flash of light on these errors and mistakes and possibly to improve the work of the medical experts in these special fields.

Accidents↗
PubMed2026

Associations between smart infusion pump-electronic health record interoperability and healthcare outcomes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This study synthesized available evidence on the associations between smart infusion pump-electronic health record (EHR) interoperability and healthcare outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus databases identified 901 records, which were imported into Rayyan® for duplicate removal, independent screening by three reviewers, and resolution of discrepancies. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, data-driven, and reported associations between smart infusion pump-EHR interoperability and healthcare outcomes. Studies focused solely on technical validation or interoperability prototypes were excluded. A backward citation search identified additional studies. Two reviewers independently extracted and cross-validated study characteristics using standardized templates. Methodological quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. RESULTS: Twenty records of 14 full-text studies and 6 conference proceedings were included. Most records reported positive associations between smart infusion pump-EHR interoperability and outcomes related to safety (e.g., medication administration errors, safety-reported events, pump alerts, and compliance with interoperability and drug library), operational efficiency (e.g., programming and documentation time and technical issues), financial performance (e.g., charges captured, and cost avoided), and user experience domains. Most studies used observational designs, reflecting real-world interoperability implementations, where controlling confounding factors is challenging. Limited reporting of baseline characteristics, pump type, and sample sizes limited comparability across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Smart infusion pump-EHR interoperability was associated with improvements in patient safety, efficiency, charge capture, and user experience, with variable findings across studies. Future research should use rigorous methodologies and standardized measures, examine relationships across outcome domains, assess limitations of pump-EHR interoperability, and evaluate underexplored outcomes, including team communication, cognitive workload, and AI-enabled pumps. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interoperability should be viewed as a component of a broader sociotechnical system, in which technology, user, workflow, clinical content, and organizational practices collectively determine overall effectiveness.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

What do we know about medical invalidation and related concepts? - A scoping review and thematic analysis about the definitions, measurements, causes, consequences and potential solutions for medical invalidation.

BACKGROUND: Medical invalidation, medical gaslighting, and related constructs have gained visibility in public discourse but remain inconsistently defined in scientific literature. Despite growing research-often focused on specific diseases- to date, no single review has comprehensively synthesized their definitions, causes, consequences, or methods of measurement. This scoping review addresses this gap by examining medical invalidation and related constructs. METHODS: Using a preregistered protocol, we systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (dissertations) without year restrictions. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed empirical, theoretical, and conceptual work in English addressing invalidation, gaslighting, or closely related notions within healthcare. A total of 158 studies were identified through database searches and citation tracking. Data extraction followed a standardized schema, and findings were synthesized descriptively and through thematic analysis to clarify terminology, map determinants and outcomes, and identify existing measurement approaches. RESULTS: The results showed substantial inconsistency in how "invalidation," "not being taken seriously," and "gaslighting" were defined. Medical invalidation emerged as a multifactorial phenomenon driven by diagnostic challenges, structural and societal factors, provider and patient characteristics, stigma, misattribution, interactional dynamics, academic knowledge gaps, and disease-related complexity. Invalidation was associated with wide-ranging behavioural, emotional, cognitive, physical, relational, and systemic harms, while validation had consistently beneficial effects. Proposed solutions in the summarized studies included communication improvements, clinician training, patient support, targeted research, and structural and systemic changes. DISCUSSIONS: Medical invalidation represents a complex, systemic issue with significant implications for patient safety. The discussion highlights its multifactorial origins, its potential to cause both psychological and physical harm, and the need for clearer conceptualisation within the field. Advancing research requires validated instruments and longitudinal designs to examine underlying mechanisms and consequences. Addressing medical invalidation will demand multi-level interventions to improve communication, reduce structural barriers, and promote equitable, patient-centred care. OSF PREREGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MPE6U.

Humans↗