Identifying and mapping measures of medication safety during transfer of care in a digital era: a scoping literature review.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015859
Catherine Leon, Helen Hogan, Yogini H Jani
{"title":"Identifying and mapping measures of medication safety during transfer of care in a digital era: a scoping literature review.","authors":"Catherine Leon, Helen Hogan, Yogini H Jani","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Measures to evaluate high-risk medication safety during transfers of care should span different safety dimensions across all components of these transfers and reflect outcomes and opportunities for proactive safety management.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To scope measures currently used to evaluate safety interventions targeting insulin, anticoagulants and other high-risk medications during transfers of care and evaluate their comprehensiveness as a portfolio.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, Medline, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched using scoping methodology for studies evaluating the safety of insulin, anticoagulants and other high-risk medications during transfer of care. Measures identified were extracted into a spreadsheet, collated and mapped against three frameworks: (1) 'Key Components of an Ideal Transfer of Care', (2) work systems, processes and outcomes and (3) whether measures captured past harms, events in real time or areas of concern. The potential for digital health systems to support proactive measures was explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five studies were reviewed with 162 measures in use. Once collated, 29 discrete categories of measures were identified. Most were outcome measures such as adverse events. Process measures included communication and issue identification and resolution. Clinic enrolment was the only work system measure. Twenty-four measures captured past harm (eg, adverse events) and six indicated future risk (eg, patient feedback for organisations). Two real-time measures alerted healthcare professionals to risks using digital systems. No measures were of advance care planning or enlisting support.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The measures identified are insufficient for a comprehensive portfolio to assess safety of key medications during transfer of care. Further measures are required to reflect all components of transfers of care and capture the work system factors contributing to outcomes in order to support proactive intervention to reduce unwanted variation and prevent adverse outcomes. Advances in digital technology and its employment within integrated care provide opportunities for the development of such measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10894843/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Measures to evaluate high-risk medication safety during transfers of care should span different safety dimensions across all components of these transfers and reflect outcomes and opportunities for proactive safety management.

Objectives: To scope measures currently used to evaluate safety interventions targeting insulin, anticoagulants and other high-risk medications during transfers of care and evaluate their comprehensiveness as a portfolio.

Methods: Embase, Medline, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched using scoping methodology for studies evaluating the safety of insulin, anticoagulants and other high-risk medications during transfer of care. Measures identified were extracted into a spreadsheet, collated and mapped against three frameworks: (1) 'Key Components of an Ideal Transfer of Care', (2) work systems, processes and outcomes and (3) whether measures captured past harms, events in real time or areas of concern. The potential for digital health systems to support proactive measures was explored.

Results: Thirty-five studies were reviewed with 162 measures in use. Once collated, 29 discrete categories of measures were identified. Most were outcome measures such as adverse events. Process measures included communication and issue identification and resolution. Clinic enrolment was the only work system measure. Twenty-four measures captured past harm (eg, adverse events) and six indicated future risk (eg, patient feedback for organisations). Two real-time measures alerted healthcare professionals to risks using digital systems. No measures were of advance care planning or enlisting support.

Conclusion: The measures identified are insufficient for a comprehensive portfolio to assess safety of key medications during transfer of care. Further measures are required to reflect all components of transfers of care and capture the work system factors contributing to outcomes in order to support proactive intervention to reduce unwanted variation and prevent adverse outcomes. Advances in digital technology and its employment within integrated care provide opportunities for the development of such measures.

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
识别和绘制数字时代护理转移期间的药物安全措施:范围界定文献综述。
背景:评估护理转移过程中高风险药物安全性的措施应涵盖这些转移的所有组成部分的不同安全维度,并反映积极安全管理的结果和机会。目的:确定目前用于评估护理转移过程中针对胰岛素、抗凝血剂和其他高风险药物的安全干预措施的范围,并评估其作为一个组合的全面性。方法:使用范围界定方法搜索Embase、Medline、Cochrane和CINAHL数据库,以评估胰岛素、抗凝血剂和其他高危药物在护理转移过程中的安全性。确定的措施被提取到电子表格中,并根据三个框架进行整理和映射:(1)“理想护理转移的关键组成部分”,(2)工作系统、流程和结果,以及(3)措施是否实时捕捉到了过去的危害、事件或关注领域。探讨了数字卫生系统支持积极措施的潜力。结果:对35项研究进行了回顾,共使用了162项措施。一经整理,就确定了29类离散的措施。大多数是不良事件等结果指标。过程措施包括沟通、问题识别和解决。诊所登记是唯一的工作制度衡量标准。24项指标反映了过去的危害(如不良事件),6项指标表明了未来的风险(如患者对组织的反馈)。两项实时措施提醒医疗保健专业人员注意使用数字系统的风险。没有采取任何措施进行预先护理规划或争取支持。结论:所确定的措施不足以作为一个全面的组合来评估护理转移过程中关键药物的安全性。需要采取进一步措施来反映护理转移的所有组成部分,并捕捉有助于结果的工作系统因素,以支持积极干预,减少不必要的变化并防止不良结果。数字技术的进步及其在综合护理中的应用为制定此类措施提供了机会。
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
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
Development of the Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) conceptual framework to monitor and improve the performance of primary care for people living with chronic conditions. Cluster randomised evaluation of a training intervention to increase the use of statistical process control charts for hospitals in England: making data count. Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study. Integration and connection: the key to effectiveness of large-scale pharmacist-led medication reviews? Reducing administrative burden by implementing a core set of quality indicators in the ICU: a multicentre longitudinal intervention study.
×
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