How to prevent medication errors: a multidimensional scaling study to investigate the distinguishability between self-injection platform device variants

References

• Lange J, Richard P, Bradley N. Usability of a new disposable autoinjector platform device: results of a formative study conducted with a broad user population. Med Devices (Auckl). 2015;8:255–264. PubMed PMID: 26082667; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4461121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thompson I, Lange J. Pen and autoinjector drug delivery devices. In: Kolhe P, Shah M, Rathore N, editors. Sterile product development. New York, NY: Springer; 2016. p. 331–356.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ. The architecture of platforms: a unified view. In: Gawer A, editor. Platforms, markets, and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2009. p.19–44.
   Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF, Greenstein S. Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry. J Ind Econ. 1999;47(1):1–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP. The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. New York: Free Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson D, Ulrich K. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Manage Rev. 1998;39(4):19.
   Google Scholar
• Dehoratius RJ, Brent LH, Curtis JR, et al. Satisfaction with subcutaneous golimumab and its auto-injector among rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to adalimumab or etanercept [journal article]. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2018 June 01;11(3):361–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivitz A, Segurado OG. HUMIRA pen: a novel autoinjection device for subcutaneous injection of the fully human monoclonal antibody adalimumab. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007 Mar;4(2):109–116. PubMed PMID: 17359217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hey-Hadavi J, Pleil A, Deeb LC, et al. Ease of use and preference for a new disposable self-injection pen compared with a reusable pen for administering recombinant human growth hormone: A multicenter, 2-month, single-arm, open-label clinical trial in patient-caregiver dyads. Clin Ther. 2010;32(12):2036–2047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torjman MC, Machnicki R, Lessin J, et al. Evaluation of an investigational wearable injector in healthy human volunteers. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017 January 02;14(1):7–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi RS, Egbuna OI, Cairns AS, et al. Performance of the pegfilgrastim on-body injector as studied with placebo buffer in healthy volunteers. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;1–6. DOI:10.1080/03007995.2016.1257980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noymer P, Shaked A, Newell K. Human factors and usability engineering in the development of SMT-101 for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2018 April 03;15(4):325–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode A. Development of the SoloSTAR insulin pen device: design verification and validation. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2009 Jan 6;6(1):103–112. PubMed PMID: 19236211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haak T, Edelman S, Walter C, et al. Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study. Clin Ther. 2007 Apr;29(4):650–660. PubMed PMID: 17617288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis EM, Sexson EL, Spangler ML, et al. An evaluation of prefilled insulin pens: a focus on the next generation Flexpen((R)). Med Devices (Auckl). 2010;3:41–50. PubMed PMID: 22915920; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3417864.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bailey T, Campos C. FlexTouch(R) for the delivery of insulin: technical attributes and perception among patients and healthcare professionals. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2012 May;9(3):209–217. PubMed PMID: 22471783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfutzner A, Forst T, Niemeyer M, et al. Assessment for ease of use and preference of a new prefilled insulin pen (FlexTouch Degludec U100/U200) versus the SoloSTAR insulin pen by patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014 Sep;11(9):1381–1389. PubMed PMID: 24921223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider AE, Lange J. Pen devices for self-injection: contrasting measured injection force with users’ perceived ease of injection. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2018 February 01;15(2):115–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callis Duffin K, Bukhalo M, Bobonich MA, et al. Usability of a novel disposable autoinjector device for ixekizumab: results from a qualitative study and an open-label clinical trial, including patient-reported experience. Med Devices (Auckl). 2016;9:361–369. PubMed PMID: 27785115; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5067052.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dashiell-Aje E, Harding G, Pascoe K, et al. Patient evaluation of satisfaction and outcomes with an autoinjector for self-administration of subcutaneous belimumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Patient. 2018 Feb;11(1):119–129. 10.1007/s40271-017-0276-2. PubMed PMID: 28956281.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Egeth M, Soosaar J, Nash P, et al. Patient and healthcare professionals preference for brenzys vs. Enbrel autoinjector for rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized crossover simulated-use study. Adv Ther. 2017 Apr 17 [cited Feb 03];34(5):1157–1172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pachon JA, Kivitz AJ, Heuer KU, et al. Assessing usability, label comprehension, pen robustness and pharmacokinetics of a self-administered prefilled autoinjector pen of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. SAGE Open Med. 2014;2:2050312114564241, 10.1177/2050312114564241. PubMed PMID: 26770759; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4712753.
   Google Scholar
• Lange J, Richard P, Bradley N. Usability of devices for self-injection: results of a formative study on a new disposable pen injector. Med Devices. 2014 Jun 12;7:195–203.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and drug administration, medication errors related to CDER-regulated drug products [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jun 18]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/medication-errors-related-cder-regulated-drug-products
   Google Scholar
• Estock JL, Murray AW, Mizah MT, et al. Label design affects medication safety in an operating room crisis: a controlled simulation study. J Patient Saf. 2015 Mar 07. PubMed PMID: 25760652. DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000176.
   Google Scholar
• Fyhr A, Akselsson R. Characteristics of medication errors with parenteral cytotoxic drugs. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012 Sep;21(5):606–613. . PubMed PMID: 22335508; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3509217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia BH, Elenjord R, Bjornstad C, et al. Safety and efficiency of a new generic package labelling: a before and after study in a simulated setting. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:817–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnerin P, Perneger T, Chopard P, et al. Drug selection errors in relation to medication labels: a simulation study. Anaesthesia. 2007 Nov;62(11):1090–1094. PubMed PMID: 17924887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellebek A, Schytte-Hansen S, Fischer H, et al. Patient safety in drug label design: analysis of reported adverse events before and after introducing a new label design. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci Pract. 2013;20(4):212–217.
   Google Scholar
• Hellier E, Tucker M, Kenny N, et al. Merits of using color and shape differentiation to improve the speed and accuracy of drug strength identification on over-the-counter medicines by laypeople. J Patient Saf. 2010;6(3):158–164. PubMed PMID: 01209203-201009000-00006.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenahan JL, McCarthy DM, Davis TC, et al. A drug by any other name: patients’ ability to identify medication regimens and its association with adherence and health outcomes. J Health Commun. 2013 Dec 04;18(sup1):31–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-2 Met). Diabetes Care. 2008;32:84–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emery P, Breedveld FC, Hall S, et al. Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9636):375–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demary W, Schwenke H, Rockwitz K, et al. Subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, by prefilled syringes versus prefilled pens: patient preference and comparison of the self-injection experience. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1061–1071. PubMed PMID: 25125973; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4130714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freundlich B, Kivitz A, Jaffe JS. Nearly pain-free self-administration of subcutaneous methotrexate with an autoinjector: results of a phase 2 clinical trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have functional limitations. J Clin Rheumatol. 2014 Aug;20(5):256–260. . PubMed PMID: 25036562; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4165470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudry C, Lebrun A, Moura B, et al. Evaluation of usability and acceptance of a new autoinjector intended for methotrexate subcutaneous self-administration in the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Ther. 2017 Jun;4(1):183–194. 10.1007/s40744-017-0057-3. PubMed PMID: 28243967; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5443726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C, et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. Jama. 2001;285(16):2114–2120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips DP, Christenfeld N, Glynn LM. Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993. Lancet. 1998;351(9103):643–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, Kohn LT. To err is human: building a safer health system. Vol. 6. Washington DC (USA): National Academies Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Cartmill R, et al. Characterising the complexity of medication safety using a human factors approach: an observational study in two intensive care units. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(1):56–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong W, Feinstein JA, Patel NS, et al. Tall man lettering and potential prescription errors: a time series analysis of 42 children’s hospitals in the USA over 9 years. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Alqahtani S, et al. Exploring the potential for using drug indications to prevent look-alike and sound-alike drug errors. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017 Oct 03;16(10):1103–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder SR, Salomon MM, Galanter WL, et al. Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;bmjqs-2015–005099. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman A. Reducing medication errors through naming, labeling, and packaging. J Med Syst. 2004 Feb;28(1):9–29. PubMed PMID: 15171066; eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ward J, Buckle P, John CP. Designing packaging to support the safe use of medicines at home. Appl Ergon. 2010 Sep;41(5):682–694. PubMed PMID: 20153457; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porat N, Bitan Y, Shefi D, et al. Use of colour-coded labels for intravenous high-risk medications and lines to improve patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(6):505–509.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Filik R, Purdy K, Gale A, et al. Labeling of medicines and patient safety: evaluating methods of reducing drug name confusion. Hum Factors. 2006 Spring;48(1):39–47. PubMed PMID: 16696255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhart JM, Spriggs H, Hampton TW, et al. Applying human factors to develop an improved package design for (Rx) medication drug labels in a pharmacy setting. J Safety Res. 2015 Dec;55:177–184. PubMed PMID: 26683561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegemann S, Riedl R, Sourij H. Identification of different shapes, colors and sizes of standard oral dosage forms in diabetes type 2 patients-A pilot study. Int J Pharm. 2017 Jan 30;517(1–2):112–118. PubMed PMID: 27919699.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lefkowitz M. Do different body colors and labels of insulin pens enhance a patient’s ability to correctly identify pens for injecting long-acting versus short-acting insulins? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 Jan 01;5(1):136–149. PubMed PMID: 21303636; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3045242. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim WH, Chan D, Boudville N, et al. Patients’ perceptions of subcutaneous delivery of darbepoetin alfa by autoinjector prefilled pen versus prefilled syringe: a randomized, crossover study. Clin Ther. 2012 Sep;34(9):1948–1953. PubMed PMID: 22902097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips JT, Fox E, Grainger W, et al. An open-label, multicenter study to evaluate the safe and effective use of the single-use autoinjector with an Avonex(R) prefilled syringe in multiple sclerosis subjects. BMC Neurol. 2011 Oct 14;11:126. PubMed PMID: 21999176; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3213083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiff M, Koo J, Jin E, et al. Usability and acceptability of the abatacept pre-filled autoinjector for the subcutaneous treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Adv Ther. 2016 Feb;33(2):199–213. 10.1007/s12325-016-0286-9. PubMed PMID: 26833303; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4769728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze-Koops H, Giacomelli R, Samborski W, et al. Factors influencing the patient evaluation of injection experience with the SmartJect autoinjector in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015 Mar -Apr;33(2):201–208. PubMed PMID: 25664404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruskal JB, Wish M Multidimensional scaling. Number 07–011 in Sage University Paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Endestad T, Wortinger LA, Madsen S, et al. Package design affects accuracy recognition for medications. Hum Factors. 2016 Dec;58(8):1206–1216. PubMed PMID: 27591209; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5570154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Leeuw J, Mair P. Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2009. Aug 04; 31(3):30. doi: 10.18637/jss.v031.i03.
   Google Scholar
• Kruskal JB. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika. 1964;29(1):1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruskal JB, Carmone FJ. How to use MDSCAL, a program to do multidimensional scaling and multidimensional unfolding. Murray Hill, NY: Bell Laboratories; 1973. ( Bell Telephone Laboratories).
   Google Scholar
• Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg I, Groenen PJF, MairP. Applied multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 81–86.
   Google Scholar
• Dieckmann P, Clemmensen MH, Sørensen TK, et al. Identifying facilitators and barriers for patient safety in a medicine label design system using patient simulation and interviews. J Patient Saf. 2016;12(4):210–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prakash V, Koczmara C, Savage P, et al. Mitigating errors caused by interruptions during medication verification and administration: interventions in a simulated ambulatory chemotherapy setting. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(11):884–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Ramsay J, Hughes C, et al. Age and grip strength predict hand dexterity in adults. PloS One. 2015;10(2):e0117598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar