患者特定适应症处方工具的安全性、性能和用户感知与当前实践的比较:混合方法随机用户测试研究。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017733
Calandra Feather, Jonathan Clarke, Nicholas Appelbaum, Ara Darzi, Bryony Dean Franklin
{"title":"患者特定适应症处方工具的安全性、性能和用户感知与当前实践的比较:混合方法随机用户测试研究。","authors":"Calandra Feather, Jonathan Clarke, Nicholas Appelbaum, Ara Darzi, Bryony Dean Franklin","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in healthcare. Despite proliferation of medication-related clinical decision support systems (CDSS), current systems have limitations. We therefore developed an indication-based prescribing tool. This performs dose calculations using an underlying formulary and provides patient-specific dosing recommendations. Objectives were to compare the incidence and types of erroneous medication orders, time to prescribe (TTP) and perceived workload using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), in simulated prescribing tasks with and without this intervention. We also sought to identify the workflow steps most vulnerable to error and to gain participant feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A simulated, randomised, cross-over exploratory study was conducted at a London NHS Trust. Participants completed five simulated prescribing tasks with, and five without, the intervention. Data collection methods comprised direct observation of prescribing tasks, self-reported task load and semistructured interviews. A concurrent triangulation design combined quantitative and qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>24 participants completed a total of 240 medication orders. The intervention was associated with fewer prescribing errors (6.6% of 120 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, p<0.01), a shorter TTP and lower overall NASA-TLX scores (p<0.01). Control arm workflow vulnerabilities included failures in identifying correct doses, applying maximum dose limits and calculating patient-specific dosages. Intervention arm errors primarily stemmed from misidentifying patient-specific information from the medication scenario. Thematic analysis of participant interviews identified six themes: navigating trust and familiarity, addressing challenges and suggestions for improvement, integration of local guidelines and existing CDSS, intervention endorsement, 'search by indication' and targeting specific patient and staff groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention represents a promising advancement in medication safety, with implications for enhancing patient safety and efficiency. Further real-world evaluation and development of the system to meet the needs of more diverse patient groups, users and healthcare settings is now required.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05493072.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: a mixed methods randomised user testing study.\",\"authors\":\"Calandra Feather, Jonathan Clarke, Nicholas Appelbaum, Ara Darzi, Bryony Dean Franklin\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in healthcare. Despite proliferation of medication-related clinical decision support systems (CDSS), current systems have limitations. We therefore developed an indication-based prescribing tool. This performs dose calculations using an underlying formulary and provides patient-specific dosing recommendations. Objectives were to compare the incidence and types of erroneous medication orders, time to prescribe (TTP) and perceived workload using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), in simulated prescribing tasks with and without this intervention. We also sought to identify the workflow steps most vulnerable to error and to gain participant feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A simulated, randomised, cross-over exploratory study was conducted at a London NHS Trust. Participants completed five simulated prescribing tasks with, and five without, the intervention. Data collection methods comprised direct observation of prescribing tasks, self-reported task load and semistructured interviews. A concurrent triangulation design combined quantitative and qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>24 participants completed a total of 240 medication orders. The intervention was associated with fewer prescribing errors (6.6% of 120 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, p<0.01), a shorter TTP and lower overall NASA-TLX scores (p<0.01). Control arm workflow vulnerabilities included failures in identifying correct doses, applying maximum dose limits and calculating patient-specific dosages. Intervention arm errors primarily stemmed from misidentifying patient-specific information from the medication scenario. Thematic analysis of participant interviews identified six themes: navigating trust and familiarity, addressing challenges and suggestions for improvement, integration of local guidelines and existing CDSS, intervention endorsement, 'search by indication' and targeting specific patient and staff groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention represents a promising advancement in medication safety, with implications for enhancing patient safety and efficiency. Further real-world evaluation and development of the system to meet the needs of more diverse patient groups, users and healthcare settings is now required.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05493072.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017733\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017733","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

摘要

背景:用药错误是医疗保健领域可预防伤害的主要原因。尽管与用药相关的临床决策支持系统(CDSS)不断涌现,但目前的系统仍存在局限性。因此,我们开发了一种基于适应症的处方工具。该工具使用基础处方集进行剂量计算,并提供针对患者的剂量建议。我们的目标是比较错误处方的发生率和类型、处方时间 (TTP) 以及使用 NASA 任务负荷指数 (TLX) 感知的工作量。我们还试图找出最容易出错的工作流程步骤,并获得参与者的反馈意见:方法:我们在伦敦一家 NHS 信托公司进行了一项模拟、随机、交叉探索性研究。参与者分别完成了五次有干预措施和五次无干预措施的模拟处方任务。数据收集方法包括直接观察处方任务、自我报告任务负荷和半结构化访谈。结果:24 名参与者共完成了 240 份处方。结果:24 名参与者共完成了 240 份药单,与标准实践(120 份药单中的 28.3%;几率比 0.18,p)相比,干预措施减少了处方错误(120 份药单中的 6.6%):该干预措施代表了用药安全领域的一大进步,对提高患者安全和效率具有重要意义。现在需要对该系统进行进一步的实际评估和开发,以满足更多不同患者群体、用户和医疗机构的需求:NCT05493072.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: a mixed methods randomised user testing study.

Background: Medication errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in healthcare. Despite proliferation of medication-related clinical decision support systems (CDSS), current systems have limitations. We therefore developed an indication-based prescribing tool. This performs dose calculations using an underlying formulary and provides patient-specific dosing recommendations. Objectives were to compare the incidence and types of erroneous medication orders, time to prescribe (TTP) and perceived workload using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), in simulated prescribing tasks with and without this intervention. We also sought to identify the workflow steps most vulnerable to error and to gain participant feedback.

Methods: A simulated, randomised, cross-over exploratory study was conducted at a London NHS Trust. Participants completed five simulated prescribing tasks with, and five without, the intervention. Data collection methods comprised direct observation of prescribing tasks, self-reported task load and semistructured interviews. A concurrent triangulation design combined quantitative and qualitative data.

Results: 24 participants completed a total of 240 medication orders. The intervention was associated with fewer prescribing errors (6.6% of 120 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, p<0.01), a shorter TTP and lower overall NASA-TLX scores (p<0.01). Control arm workflow vulnerabilities included failures in identifying correct doses, applying maximum dose limits and calculating patient-specific dosages. Intervention arm errors primarily stemmed from misidentifying patient-specific information from the medication scenario. Thematic analysis of participant interviews identified six themes: navigating trust and familiarity, addressing challenges and suggestions for improvement, integration of local guidelines and existing CDSS, intervention endorsement, 'search by indication' and targeting specific patient and staff groups.

Conclusion: The intervention represents a promising advancement in medication safety, with implications for enhancing patient safety and efficiency. Further real-world evaluation and development of the system to meet the needs of more diverse patient groups, users and healthcare settings is now required.

Trial registration number: NCT05493072.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: a mixed methods randomised user testing study. Results of a healthcare transition learning collaborative for emerging adults with sickle cell disease: the ST3P-UP study transition quality improvement collaborative. Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Longitudinal cohort study of discrepancies between prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates: implications for National Aged Care Quality Indicator Programs. Why a sociotechnical framework is necessary to address diagnostic error.
×
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