AnesthCalc™ is associated with superior accuracy and faster accomplishment in simulation-based anesthesia drugs dosage calculation

M. Lestari, Zulkifli, R. Zainal, Muhammad Mulia
{"title":"AnesthCalc™ is associated with superior accuracy and faster accomplishment in simulation-based anesthesia drugs dosage calculation","authors":"M. Lestari, Zulkifli, R. Zainal, Muhammad Mulia","doi":"10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_157_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Medication error is one of the barriers to achieving sustainable patient safety. We aim to determine the efficacy and reliability of a smartphone dosage calculator application (AnesthCalc™) when compared with the manual calculation of various anesthetic drugs to prevent medication error. Materials and Methods: This is a pre-test–post-test intervention study. There are 52 participants who included residents in anesthesiology, which is divided into two groups. Each group performed two simulation cases in which they had to calculate drugs dosage in anesthesia settings. One set of cases was performed with the app and the other set was performed manually. The order of drugs and simulation patients was randomized. The accuracy and the deviation of administered drug doses were recorded. Accuracy of dosage was categorized as either accurate (80–100% of target dose) or inaccurate (less than 80%), whereas the deviation of dosage was categorized as either deviant (<50% or >200% of target dose) or safe (between the range). Results: There is a significant increase in the accuracy of calculation between the manual group and that using the app group (from 46% to 92%, a mean increase of 18.29%, P < 0.005). There is a significant decrease in the duration of calculation between without using the app group and with using the app group (from 32.92 to 18.79 s, a mean decrease of 30.55 s, P = 0.001). Conclusion: AnesthCalc™ is a valid and reliable instrument as it increases users’ accuracy and shortens calculating time. AnesthCalc™ may be the potential to reduce calculation errors and may increase patients’ safety.","PeriodicalId":8691,"journal":{"name":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bali Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_157_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medication error is one of the barriers to achieving sustainable patient safety. We aim to determine the efficacy and reliability of a smartphone dosage calculator application (AnesthCalc™) when compared with the manual calculation of various anesthetic drugs to prevent medication error. Materials and Methods: This is a pre-test–post-test intervention study. There are 52 participants who included residents in anesthesiology, which is divided into two groups. Each group performed two simulation cases in which they had to calculate drugs dosage in anesthesia settings. One set of cases was performed with the app and the other set was performed manually. The order of drugs and simulation patients was randomized. The accuracy and the deviation of administered drug doses were recorded. Accuracy of dosage was categorized as either accurate (80–100% of target dose) or inaccurate (less than 80%), whereas the deviation of dosage was categorized as either deviant (<50% or >200% of target dose) or safe (between the range). Results: There is a significant increase in the accuracy of calculation between the manual group and that using the app group (from 46% to 92%, a mean increase of 18.29%, P < 0.005). There is a significant decrease in the duration of calculation between without using the app group and with using the app group (from 32.92 to 18.79 s, a mean decrease of 30.55 s, P = 0.001). Conclusion: AnesthCalc™ is a valid and reliable instrument as it increases users’ accuracy and shortens calculating time. AnesthCalc™ may be the potential to reduce calculation errors and may increase patients’ safety.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
AnesthCalc™在基于模拟的麻醉药物剂量计算中具有卓越的准确性和更快的完成速度
背景:用药失误是实现可持续患者安全的障碍之一。我们旨在确定智能手机剂量计算器应用程序(AnesthCalc™) 与手工计算各种麻醉药物相比,可防止用药错误。材料和方法:这是一项测试前-测试后干预研究。共有52名参与者,包括麻醉学住院医师,分为两组。每组进行两个模拟案例,在这些案例中,他们必须计算麻醉环境中的药物剂量。一组病例是用应用程序进行的,另一组是手动进行的。药物和模拟患者的顺序是随机的。记录给药剂量的准确性和偏差。剂量的准确度分为准确度(目标剂量的80-100%)或不准确度(低于80%),而剂量的偏差分为偏离度(目标量的200%)或安全度(在范围之间)。结果:手工组与应用程序组的计算准确率有显著提高(从46%提高到92%,平均提高18.29%,P<0.005),不使用应用程序组与使用应用程序的计算持续时间有显著缩短(从32.92降低到18.79s,平均降低30.55s,P=0.001)™ 是一种有效可靠的仪器,因为它提高了用户的准确性并缩短了计算时间。AnesthCalc™ 可能有可能减少计算误差并提高患者的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology
Bali Journal of Anesthesiology Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Selective Critically ill patients with tracheostomy are eligible for direct from intensive care unit sent home: Case series Comment on: Effects of different anesthetic techniques on neutrophil lymphocyte ratio and monocyte lymphocyte ratio in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: A prospective, single-blind, randomized study Low procalcitonin clearance correlates with mortality treated with culture-matched antibiotics in intensive care unit: A retrospective, observational study Phenylephrine, ondansetron, or combination of both for prevention of intraoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lower segment cesarean section: A prospective, double-blind randomized control trial Artificial intelligence in anesthesia and critical care (part 1): Current perspective in critical care setting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1