Medication Safety Gaps in English Pediatric Inpatient Units: An Exploration Using Work Domain Analysis.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001174
Adam Sutherland, Denham L Phipps, Andrea Gill, Stephen Morris, Darren M Ashcroft
{"title":"Medication Safety Gaps in English Pediatric Inpatient Units: An Exploration Using Work Domain Analysis.","authors":"Adam Sutherland, Denham L Phipps, Andrea Gill, Stephen Morris, Darren M Ashcroft","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Medication is a common cause of preventable medical harm in pediatric inpatients. This study aimed to examine the sociotechnical system surrounding pediatric medicines management, to identify potential gaps in this system and how these might contribute to adverse drug events (ADEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An exploratory prospective qualitative study in pediatric wards in three hospitals in the north of England was conducted between October 2020 and May 2022. Analysis included a documentary analysis of 72 policies and procedures and analysis of field notes from 60 hours of participant observation. The cognitive work analysis prompt framework was used to generate a work domain analysis (WDA) and identify potential contributory factors to ADEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The WDA identified 2 functional purposes, 7 value/priority measures, 6 purpose-related functions, 11 object-related processes and 14 objects. Structured means-ends connections supported identification of 3 potential contributory factors-resource limitations, cognitive demands, and adaptation of processes. The lack of resources (equipment, materials, knowledge, and experience) created an environment where distractions and interruptions were unavoidable. Families helped provide practical support in medicines administration but were largely unacknowledged at an organizational level. There was a lack of teamwork with regards to medication with different professionals responsible for different parts of the system. Mandated safety checks on medicines were frequently omitted because of limited resources and perceived redundancy. Interventions to support adherence to safety policies were also often bypassed because they created more work.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The WDA has provided insights into the complex system of medication safety for children in hospital and has facilitated the identification of potential contributory factors to ADEs. We therefore advocate (in priority order) for processes to involve parents in the care of their children in hospital, development of skill-mix interventions to ensure appropriate expertise is available where it is needed, and modified checking procedures to permit staff to use their skills and judgment effectively and efficiently.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Medication is a common cause of preventable medical harm in pediatric inpatients. This study aimed to examine the sociotechnical system surrounding pediatric medicines management, to identify potential gaps in this system and how these might contribute to adverse drug events (ADEs).

Methods: An exploratory prospective qualitative study in pediatric wards in three hospitals in the north of England was conducted between October 2020 and May 2022. Analysis included a documentary analysis of 72 policies and procedures and analysis of field notes from 60 hours of participant observation. The cognitive work analysis prompt framework was used to generate a work domain analysis (WDA) and identify potential contributory factors to ADEs.

Results: The WDA identified 2 functional purposes, 7 value/priority measures, 6 purpose-related functions, 11 object-related processes and 14 objects. Structured means-ends connections supported identification of 3 potential contributory factors-resource limitations, cognitive demands, and adaptation of processes. The lack of resources (equipment, materials, knowledge, and experience) created an environment where distractions and interruptions were unavoidable. Families helped provide practical support in medicines administration but were largely unacknowledged at an organizational level. There was a lack of teamwork with regards to medication with different professionals responsible for different parts of the system. Mandated safety checks on medicines were frequently omitted because of limited resources and perceived redundancy. Interventions to support adherence to safety policies were also often bypassed because they created more work.

Conclusions: The WDA has provided insights into the complex system of medication safety for children in hospital and has facilitated the identification of potential contributory factors to ADEs. We therefore advocate (in priority order) for processes to involve parents in the care of their children in hospital, development of skill-mix interventions to ensure appropriate expertise is available where it is needed, and modified checking procedures to permit staff to use their skills and judgment effectively and efficiently.

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
英国儿科住院病房用药安全差距的工作领域分析。
目的:药物治疗是儿科住院患者可预防医疗伤害的常见原因。本研究旨在检查围绕儿科药物管理的社会技术系统,以确定该系统中的潜在差距,以及这些差距如何导致不良药物事件。方法:2020年10月至2022年5月,在英格兰北部三家医院的儿科病房进行了一项探索性前瞻性定性研究。分析包括对72项政策和程序的文件分析,以及对参与者60小时观察的实地说明的分析。使用认知工作分析提示框架生成工作领域分析(WDA),并确定ADEs的潜在促成因素。结果:WDA确定了2个功能目的、7个价值/优先级指标、6个目的相关功能、11个对象相关过程和14个对象。结构化的手段-目的连接支持识别3个潜在的促成因素——资源限制、认知需求和过程适应。资源(设备、材料、知识和经验)的缺乏造成了一种不可避免的分心和中断的环境。家庭在药品管理方面提供了实际支持,但在组织层面基本上没有得到承认。在药物治疗方面缺乏团队合作,不同的专业人员负责系统的不同部分。由于资源有限和被认为是多余的,强制性的药品安全检查经常被省略。支持遵守安全政策的干预措施也经常被忽视,因为它们创造了更多的工作。结论:WDA为住院儿童的复杂药物安全系统提供了见解,并有助于识别ADE的潜在促成因素。因此,我们提倡(按优先顺序)让父母参与到医院照顾孩子的过程中,制定技能组合干预措施,以确保在需要的地方提供适当的专业知识,并修改检查程序,使工作人员能够有效、高效地使用他们的技能和判断。
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
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
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