ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Predicting clinically significant medication errors: Development and validation of a risk stratification model using incident reporting data.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medication error reporting systems capture large volumes of incidents, yet only a small proportion lead to clinically significant patient outcomes. Distinguishing these high-risk errors from the majority of low-impact events remains a major challenge for healthcare systems. This study aimed to develop a predictive model to identify medication errors at elevated risk of clinical significance in a tertiary care setting. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Al-Noor Specialist Hospital in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, analyzing medication error reports from January 2023 to August 2025. Clinically significant errors were defined as those reaching the patient with or without harm (NCC MERP Categories C-G). Univariate analyses identified candidate predictors, followed by multivariable logistic regression with category collapsing for model efficiency. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Brier score. Risk stratification divided predicted probabilities into low, moderate, and high-risk groups. Results: Among 6,397 medication errors, 227 (3.5%) were clinically significant. The final model demonstrated good discrimination (AUC = 0.825) and calibration (Brier score = 0.029). Independent predictors of clinically significant errors were high-risk error stages including administration, dispensing, and monitoring (OR = 19.1, 95% CI: 14.1-26.1), high-risk medication classes such as antibiotics and oncology agents (OR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.62-4.78), intermediate or other medication classes (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.39-4.18), selection or information errors (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.40-3.46), and lack of staff experience (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.33-2.49). Variables describing who detected or who committed the error were deliberately excluded from the model because they are not available at the moment an error occurs. Risk stratification classified 10.1% of errors as high-risk, capturing 62.6% of all clinically significant events. Conclusion: A parsimonious predictive model using readily available incident report data can effectively identify medication errors at elevated risk of clinical significance. The risk-stratification framework enables prioritization of safety resources toward high-risk incidents requiring immediate intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.