Methadone Dosing Discrepancies and Failure to Verify Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure methadone was administered in accordance with physician orders, resulting in significant medication errors for multiple residents on methadone maintenance therapy. Facility policy required that medication administration and documentation be timely and accurate, that the eMAR serve as the source for pouring and administering medications, and that licensed nurses verify the five rights by comparing the medication name, strength, route, and dosage schedule on the MAR against the prescription label. Despite this, a review of methadone administration records for 23 residents on methadone identified 10 residents whose methadone bottles were labeled with doses that did not match the physician’s orders entered in the electronic medical record. For these 10 residents, the physician’s orders and bottle labels showed consistent discrepancies in methadone dosages, although the eMARs documented administration of the ordered doses. Examples included residents with diagnoses such as endocarditis, heart failure, anemia, asthma, coronary artery disease, schizophrenia, viral hepatitis, and opioid use disorder. One resident had a physician’s order for 60 mg daily while the bottle was labeled 70 mg; another had an order for 115 mg while the bottle was labeled 125 mg; another had an order for 80 mg with a bottle labeled 90 mg. Additional residents had orders for 40 mg with a bottle labeled 30 mg, 95 mg with a bottle labeled 85 mg, 30 mg with a bottle labeled 24 mg, 20 mg with a bottle labeled 30 mg, 120 mg with a bottle labeled 130 mg, 280 mg with a bottle labeled 295 mg, and 90 mg with a bottle labeled 80 mg. All of these residents had methadone orders documented in the eMAR and received daily methadone doses as charted, but the labeled bottle doses did not match the physician orders. Interviews with nursing staff and medical leadership revealed systemic process failures and inconsistent practices in verifying methadone doses. An LPN stated that when administering methadone, they checked the physician’s order in the electronic record and then administered methadone labeled with the resident’s name, but did not cross-check the dosage on the bottle against the physician’s order and had not noticed discrepancies. An RN reported only checking the resident’s name on the bottle and not the physician’s order or dosage, explaining that they were familiar with the residents, despite acknowledging they were supposed to ensure the bottle dosage matched the order. Other RNs stated they followed the dosage on the bottle without comparing it to the physician’s order and had not noticed differences. Interviews with the attending physician, DON, and medical director further described a lack of clear communication and documentation processes between the facility and the methadone clinic. The attending physician stated that the methadone clinic prescribed the dosage and frequency, that they did not receive physical or electronic orders from the clinic, and that nurses entered orders into the electronic record from the bottle labels, which the physician then signed without knowing the intended methadone dose for each resident. The attending physician also stated that the physician’s order and the bottle dosage did not necessarily need to match for nurses to administer the medication. The DON reported that residents went to the methadone clinic to pick up medication, returned it to the unit nurse, and that the nurse called the attending physician with the dosage and entered the order, with no receipt or paperwork from the clinic. The medical director stated that the clinic sent a report with dosages and frequencies, that nurses entered this into the electronic record, and that they signed orders without reviewing the report, later characterizing the situation as a system failure due to lack of established processes and communication.
