Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 15, 2026

Improving IV Insulin Administration in a Community Hospital
Published on: June 11, 2012
Methodological variations and their effects on reported medication administration error rates
Monsey Chan McLeod1, Nick Barber, Bryony Dean Franklin
1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust,Charing Cross Hospital, London W6 8RF, UK. monsey.mcleod@imperial.nhs.uk
Background:
Medication administration errors (MAEs) are a problem, yet methodological variation between studies presents a potential barrier to understanding how best to increase safety. Using the UK as a case-study, we systematically summarised methodological variations in MAE studies, and their effects on reported MAE rates.
Methods:
Nine healthcare databases were searched for quantitative observational MAE studies in UK hospitals. Methodological variations were analysed and meta-analysis of MAE rates performed using studies that used the same definitions. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to compare MAE rates between intravenous (IV) and non-IV doses, and between paediatric and adult doses.
Results:
We identified 16 unique studies reporting three MAE definitions, 44 MAE subcategories and four different denominators. Overall adult MAE rates were 5.6% of a total of 21 533 non-IV opportunities for error (OE) (95% CI 4.6% to 6.7%) and 35% of a total of 154 IV OEs (95% CI 2% to 68%). MAEs were five times more likely in IV than non-IV doses (pooled OR 5.1; 95% CI 3.5 to 7.5). Including timing errors of ±30 min increased the MAE rate from 27% to 69% of 320 IV doses in one study. Five studies were unclear as to whether the denominator included dose omissions; omissions accounted for 0%-13% of IV doses and 1.8%-5.1% of non-IV doses.
Conclusions:
Wide methodological variations exist even within one country, some with significant effects on reported MAE rates. We have made recommendations for future MAE studies; these may be applied both within and outside the UK.
Insights
Methodological variations in medication administration error (MAE) studies significantly impact reported rates. Standardizing study methods is crucial for improving patient safety and understanding MAE trends.
Area of Science:
- Healthcare research methodology
- Patient safety science
- Clinical pharmacy
Background:
- Medication administration errors (MAEs) are a significant patient safety concern.
- Methodological inconsistencies across studies hinder a clear understanding of MAE rates and contributing factors.
- This study focuses on the UK as a case study to analyze variations in MAE research.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically summarize methodological variations in medication administration error (MAE) studies conducted in UK hospitals.
- To assess the impact of these methodological variations on reported MAE rates.
- To provide recommendations for future MAE research to enhance consistency and reliability.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of quantitative observational MAE studies from nine healthcare databases.
- Analysis of methodological variations including MAE definitions, subcategories, and denominators.
- Meta-analysis of MAE rates and calculation of odds ratios (OR) for intravenous (IV) vs. non-IV and pediatric vs. adult doses.
Main Results:
- 16 studies were identified, reporting diverse MAE definitions, subcategories, and denominators.
- Overall adult MAE rates were 5.6% for non-IV and 35% for IV doses.
- MAEs were significantly more likely in IV than non-IV doses (OR 5.1).
- Inclusion of timing errors or dose omissions substantially altered reported MAE rates.
Conclusions:
- Significant methodological variations exist in MAE studies, even within a single country.
- These variations demonstrably affect reported MAE rates, complicating comparisons and safety assessments.
- Standardized methodologies are recommended for future MAE research to improve data comparability and inform safety interventions.
Related Concept Videos
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Dosage Regimen: Individualization
Dosage Interval and Administration Route: Determination Methods
Random and Systematic Errors
Random and Systematic Errors
Dosage Regimens: Designs and Approaches