Background Double checking medication administration in hospitals is often standard practice, particularly for high-risk drugs, yet its effectiveness in reducing medication administration errors (MAEs) and improving patient outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating evidence of the effectiveness of double checking to reduce MAEs. Methods Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Ovid@Journals, OpenGrey) were searched for studies evaluating the use and effectiveness of double checking on reducing medication administration errors in a hospital setting. Included studies were required to report any of three outcome measures: an effect estimate such as a risk ratio or risk difference representing the association between double checking and MAEs, or between double checking and patient harm; or a rate representing adherence to the hospital’s double checking policy. Results Thirteen studies were identified, including 10 studies using an observational study design, two randomised controlled trials and one randomised trial in a simulated setting. Studies included both paediatric and adult inpatient populations and varied considerably in quality. Among three good quality studies, only one showed a significant association between double checking and a reduction in MAEs, another showed no association, and the third study reported only adherence rates. No studies investigated changes in medication-related harm associated with double checking. Reported double checking adherence rates ranged from 52% to 97% of administrations. Only three studies reported if and how independent and primed double checking were differentiated. Conclusion There is insufficient evidence that double versus single checking of medication administration is associated with lower rates of MAEs or reduced harm. Most comparative studies fail to define or investigate the level of adherence to independent double checking, further limiting conclusions regarding effectiveness in error prevention. Higher-quality studies are needed to determine if, and in what context (eg, drug type, setting), double checking produces sufficient benefits in patient safety to warrant the considerable resources required. CRD42018103436.

Background Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. Objectives To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. Methods Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed—one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients’ medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. Results For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65–1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65–1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54–0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57–0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). Conclusions Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings.

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the utility of the Cogstate self-administered computerized neuropsychological battery in a large population of older men. Methods: We invited 7,167 men (mean age of 75 years) from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a prospective cohort of male health professionals. We considered individual Cogstate scores and composite scores measuring psychomotor speed and attention, learning and working memory and overall cognition. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess the association between risk factors measured 4 and 28 years prior to cognitive testing and each outcome. Results: The 1,866 men who agreed to complete Cogstate testing were similar to the 5,301 non-responders. Many expected risk factors were associated with Cogstate scores in multivariate adjusted models. Increasing age was significantly associated with worse performance on all outcomes (p < 0.001). For risk factors measured 4 years prior to testing and overall cognition, a history of hypertension was significantly associated with worse performance (mean difference of -0.08 standard units (95% CI -0.16, 0.00)) and higher consumption of nuts was significantly associated with better performance (>2 servings/week vs. <1 serving/month: 0.15 (0.03, 0.27)). Conclusions: The self-administered Cogstate battery showed significant associations with several risk factors known to be associated with cognitive function. Future studies of cognitive aging may benefit from the numerous advantages of self-administered computerized testing.

Background: Growing evidence suggests incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be a long‐term outcome of COVID‐19 infection, and chronic diseases, such as diabetes, may influence CVD risk associated with COVID‐19. We evaluated the postacute risk of CVD >30 days after a COVID‐19 diagnosis by diabetes status. Methods and Results: We included adults ≥20 years old with a COVID‐19 diagnosis from March 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021 in a retrospective cohort study from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus insurance claims database. A contemporaneous control group comprised adults without recorded diagnoses for COVID‐19 or other acute respiratory infections. Two historical control groups comprised patients with or without an acute respiratory infection. Cardiovascular outcomes included cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmia, inflammatory heart disease, ischemic heart disease, thrombotic disorders, other cardiac disorders, major adverse cardiovascular events, and any CVD. The total sample comprised 23 824 095 adults (mean age, 48.4 years [SD, 15.7 years]; 51.9% women; mean follow‐up, 8.5 months [SD, 5.8 months]). In multivariable Cox regression models, patients with a COVID‐19 diagnosis had a significantly greater risk of all cardiovascular outcomes compared with patients without a diagnosis of COVID‐19 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66 [1.62–1.71], with diabetes; HR, 1.75 [1.73–1.78], without diabetes). Risk was attenuated but still significant for the majority of outcomes when comparing patients with COVID‐19 to both historical control groups. Conclusions: In patients with COVID‐19 infection, postacute risk of incident cardiovascular outcomes is significantly higher than among controls without COVID‐19, regardless of diabetes status. Therefore, monitoring for incident CVD may be essential beyond the first 30 days after a COVID‐19 diagnosis.

Preventing Chronic Disease (PCD) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal established by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. PCD provides an open exchange of information and knowledge among researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and others who strive to improve the health of the public through chronic disease prevention.