A network collaboration implementing technology to improve medication dispensing and administration in critical access hospitals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wakefield DS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2995685 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep-Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A network collaboration implementing technology to improve medication dispensing and administration in critical access hospitals.
Wakefield Douglas S DS Ward Marcia M MM Loes Jean L JL O'Brien John J
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20100901 5
We report how seven independent critical access hospitals collaborated with a rural referral hospital to standardize workflow policies and procedures while jointly implementing the same health information technologies (HITs) to enhance medication care processes. The study hospitals implemented the same electronic health record, computerized provider order entry, pharmacy information systems, automated dispensing cabinets (ADC), and barcode medication administration systems. We conducted intervie ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and electronic medication administration records (eMAR) is associated with better quality of medication administration at medium-to-large acute-care hospitals. DATA/STUDY SETTING: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of data from three sources: CPOE/eMAR usage from HIMSS Analytics (2010), medication quality scores from CMS Hospital Compare (2010), and hospital characteristics from CMS Acute Inpatient Prospective Payment System (2009). The analysis focused on 11 quality indicators (January-December 2009) at 2603 medium-to-large (≥ 100 beds), non-federal acute-care hospitals measuring proportion of eligible patients given (or prescribed) recommended medications for conditions, including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, and surgical care improvement. Using technology adoption by 2008 as reference, hospitals were coded: (1) eMAR-only adopters (n=986); (2) CPOE-only adopters (n=115); and (3) adopters of both technologies (n=804); with non-adopters of both technologies as reference group (n=698). Hospitals were also coded for duration of use in 2-year increments since technology adoption. Hospital characteristics, historical measure-specific patient volume, and propensity scores for technology adoption were used to control for confounding factors. The analysis was performed using a generalized linear model (logit link and binomial family).Principal findingsRelative to non-adopters of both eMAR and CPOE, the odds of adherence to all measures (except one) were higher by 14-29% for eMAR-only hospitals and by 13-38% for hospitals with both technologies, translating to a marginal increase of 0.4-2.0 percentage points. Further, each additional 2 years of technology use was associated with 6-15% higher odds of compliance on all medication measures for eMAR-only hospitals and users of both technologies.ConclusionsImplementation and duration of use of health information technologies are associated with improved adherence to medication guidelines at US hospitals. The benefits are evident for adoption of eMAR systems alone and in combination with CPOE.
| S-EPMC3341782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medication errors can have severe consequences and threaten patient safety. The patient safety-related benefits of automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) have been reported by several previous studies, including a reduction in medication errors in intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments. However, the benefits of ADCs need to be assessed, given the different healthcare practice models. This study aimed to compare the rates of medication errors, including prescription, dispensing, and administrative, before and after using ADCs in intensive care units. The prescription, dispensing, and administrative error data before and after the adoption of ADCs were retrospectively collected from the medication error report system. The severity of medication errors was classified according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention guidelines. The study outcome was the rate of medication errors. After the adoption of ADCs in the intensive care units, the rates of prescription and dispensing errors reduced from 3.03 to 1.75 per 100,000 prescriptions and 3.87 to 0 per 100,000 dispensations, respectively. The administrative error rate decreased from 0.046 to 0.026%. The ADCs decreased National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention category B and D errors by 75% and category C errors by 43%. To improve medication safety, multidisciplinary collaboration and strategies, such as the use of automated dispensing cabinets, education, and training programs from a systems perspective, are warranted.
| S-EPMC10136387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAutomated dose dispensing (ADD) is being introduced in several countries and the use of this technology is expected to increase as a growing number of elderly people need to manage their medication at home. ADD aims to improve medication safety and treatment adherence, but it may introduce new safety issues. This descriptive study provides insight into the nature and consequences of medication incidents related to ADD, as reported by healthcare professionals in community pharmacies and hospitals.MethodsThe medication incidents that were submitted to the Dutch Central Medication incidents Registration (CMR) reporting system were selected and characterized independently by two researchers.Main outcome measuresPerson discovering the incident, phase of the medication process in which the incident occurred, immediate cause of the incident, nature of incident from the healthcare provider's perspective, nature of incident from the patient's perspective, and consequent harm to the patient caused by the incident.ResultsFrom January 2012 to February 2013 the CMR received 15,113 incidents: 3,685 (24.4%) incidents from community pharmacies and 11,428 (75.6%) incidents from hospitals. Eventually 1 of 50 reported incidents (268/15,113 = 1.8%) were related to ADD; in community pharmacies more incidents (227/3,685 = 6.2%) were related to ADD than in hospitals (41/11,428 = 0.4%). The immediate cause of an incident was often a change in the patient's medicine regimen or relocation. Most reported incidents occurred in two phases: entering the prescription into the pharmacy information system and filling the ADD bag.ConclusionA proportion of incidents was related to ADD and is reported regularly, especially by community pharmacies. In two phases, entering the prescription into the pharmacy information system and filling the ADD bag, most incidents occurred. A change in the patient's medicine regimen or relocation was the immediate causes of an incident.
| S-EPMC4109935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:To identify that workarounds (defined as "informal temporary practices for handling exceptions to normal procedures or workflow") by nurses using information technology potentially compromise medication safety. Therefore, we aimed to identify potential risk factors associated with workarounds performed by nurses in Barcode-assisted Medication Administration in hospitals. BACKGROUND:Medication errors occur during the prescribing, distribution and administration of medication. Errors could harm patients and be a tragedy for both nurses and medical doctors involved. Interventions to prevent errors have been developed, including those based on information technology. To cope with shortcomings in information technology-based interventions as Barcode-assisted Medication Administration, nurses perform workarounds. Identification of workarounds in information technology is essential to implement better-designed software and processes which fit the nurse workflow. DESIGN:We used the data from our previous prospective observational study, performed in four general hospitals in the Netherlands using Barcode techniques, to administer medication to inpatients. METHODS:Data were collected from 2014-2016. The disguised observation was used to gather information on potential risk factors and workarounds. The outcome was a medication administration with one or more workarounds. Logistic mixed models were used to determine the association between potential risk factors and workarounds. The STROBE checklist was used for reporting our data. RESULTS:We included 5,793 medication administrations among 1,230 patients given by 272 nurses. In 3,633 (62.7%) of the administrations, one or more workarounds were observed. In the multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with workarounds were the medication round at 02 p.m.-06 p.m. (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.05-2.45) and 06 p.m.-10 p.m. (adjusted OR: 3.60, 95% CI: 2.11-6.14) versus the morning shift 06 a.m.-10 a.m., the workdays Monday (adjusted OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.51-4.44), Wednesday (adjusted OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.2-3.07) and Saturday (adjusted OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.31-3.84) versus Sunday, the route of medication, nonoral (adjusted OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.05-1.57) versus the oral route of drug administration, the Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classification-coded medication "other" (consisting of the irregularly used Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical classes [D, G, H, L, P, V, Y, Z]) (adjusted OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.05-2.11) versus Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical class A (alimentary tract and metabolism), and the patient-nurse ratio ≥6-1 (adjusted OR: 5.61, 95% CI: 2.9-10.83) versus ≤5-1. CONCLUSIONS:We identified several potential risk factors associated with workarounds performed by nurses that could be used to target future improvement efforts in Barcode-assisted Medication Administration. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE:Nurses administering medication in hospitals using Barcode-assisted Medication Administration frequently perform workarounds, which may compromise medication safety. In particular, nurse workload and the patient-nurse ratio could be the focus for improvement measures as these are the most clearly modifiable factors identified in this study.
| S-EPMC7328795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Pediatric patients cared for in professional healthcare settings are at high risk of medication errors. Interventions to improve patient safety often focus on prescribing; however, the subsequent stages in the medication use process (dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring) are also error-prone. This systematic review aims to identify and analyze interventions to reduce dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring errors in professional pediatric healthcare settings. Methods: Four databases were searched for experimental studies with separate control and intervention groups, published in English between 2011 and 2019. Interventions were classified for the first time in pediatric medication safety according to the "hierarchy of controls" model, which predicts that interventions at higher levels are more likely to bring about change. Higher-level interventions aim to reduce risks through elimination, substitution, or engineering controls. Examples of these include the introduction of smart pumps instead of standard pumps (a substitution control) and the introduction of mandatory barcode scanning for drug administration (an engineering control). Administrative controls such as guidelines, warning signs, and educational approaches are lower on the hierarchy and therefore predicted by this model to be less likely to be successful. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1 study of dispensing errors, 7 studies of drug administration errors, and 12 studies targeting multiple steps of the medication use process. A total of 44 interventions were identified. Eleven of these were considered higher-level controls (four substitution and seven engineering controls). The majority of interventions (n = 33) were considered "administrative controls" indicating a potential reliance on these measures. Studies that implemented higher-level controls were observed to be more likely to reduce errors, confirming that the hierarchy of controls model may be useful in this setting. Heterogeneous study methods, definitions, and outcome measures meant that a meta-analysis was not appropriate. Conclusions: When designing interventions to reduce pediatric dispensing, drug administration, and monitoring errors, the hierarchy of controls model should be considered, with a focus placed on the introduction of higher-level controls, which may be more likely to reduce errors than the administrative controls often seen in practice. Trial Registration Prospero Identifier: CRD42016047127.
| S-EPMC8187621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play a crucial role in the US rural safety net. Current policy efforts have focused primarily on helping these small, isolated hospitals remain financially viable to ensure access for individuals living in rural areas in the United States; however, little is known about the quality of care they provide or the outcomes their patients achieve.To examine the quality of care and patient outcomes at CAHs and to understand why patterns of care might differ for CAHs vs non-CAHs.A retrospective analysis in 4738 US hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (10,703 for CAHs vs 469,695 for non-CAHs), congestive heart failure (CHF) (52,927 for CAHs vs 958,790 for non-CAHs), and pneumonia (86,359 for CAHs vs 773,227 for non-CAHs) who were discharged in 2008-2009.Clinical capabilities, performance on processes of care, and 30-day mortality rates, adjusted for age, sex, race, and medical comorbidities.Compared with other hospitals (n = 3470), 1268 CAHs (26.8%) were less likely to have intensive care units (380 [30.0%] vs 2581 [74.4%], P < .001), cardiac catheterization capabilities (6 [0.5%] vs 1654 [47.7%], P < .001), and at least basic electronic health records (80 [6.5%] vs 445 [13.9%], P < .001). The CAHs had lower performance on processes of care than non-CAHs for all 3 conditions examined (concordance with Hospital Quality Alliance process measures for AMI, 91.0% [95% CI, 89.7%-92.3%] vs 97.8% [95% CI, 97.7%-97.9%]; for CHF, 80.6% [95% CI, 79.2%-82.0%] vs 93.5% [95% CI, 93.3%-93.7%]; and for pneumonia, 89.3% [95% CI, 88.6%-90.0%] vs 93.7% [95% CI, 93.6%-93.9%]; P < .001 for each). Patients admitted to CAHs had higher 30-day mortality rates for each condition than those admitted to non-CAHs (for AMI: 23.5% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-1.80; P < .001; for CHF: 13.4% vs 10.9%; adjusted OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32; P < .001; and for pneumonia: 14.1% vs 12.1%; adjusted OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P < .001).Compared with non-CAHs, CAHs had fewer clinical capabilities, worse measured processes of care, and higher mortality rates for patients with AMI, CHF, or pneumonia.
| S-EPMC3337777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCritical access hospitals (CAHs) provide care to rural communities. Increasing mortality rates have been reported for CAHs relative to non-CAHs. Because Medicare reimburses CAHs at cost, CAHs may report fewer diagnoses than non-CAHs, which may affect risk-adjusted comparisons of outcomes.ObjectiveTo assess serial differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between CAHs and non-CAHs after accounting for differences in diagnosis coding.Design, setting, and participantsSerial cross-sectional study of rural Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries admitted to US CAHs and non-CAHs for pneumonia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arrhythmia, urinary tract infection, septicemia, and stroke from 2007 to 2017. The final date of follow-up was December 31, 2017.ExposureAdmission to a CAH vs non-CAH.Main outcomes and measuresDischarge diagnosis count including trends from 2010 to 2011 when Medicare expanded the allowable number of billing codes for hospitalizations, and combined in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality adjusted for demographics, primary diagnosis, preexisting conditions, and with vs without further adjustment for Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) score to understand the contribution of in-hospital secondary diagnoses.ResultsThere were 4 094 720 hospitalizations (17% CAH) for 2 850 194 unique Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [11.7] years; 55.5% women). Patients in CAHs were older (median age, 80.1 vs 76.8 years) and more likely to be female (58% vs 55%). In 2010, the adjusted mean discharge diagnosis count was 7.52 for CAHs vs 8.53 for non-CAHs (difference, -0.99 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.90]; P < .001). In 2011, the CAH vs non-CAH difference in diagnoses coded increased (P < .001 for interaction between CAH and year) to 9.27 vs 12.23 (difference, -2.96 [95% CI, -3.19 to -2.73]; P < .001). Adjusted mortality rates from the model with HCC were 13.52% for CAHs vs 11.44% for non-CAHs (percentage point difference, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.74 to 2.42]; P < .001) in 2007 and increased to 15.97% vs 12.46% (difference, 3.52 [95% CI, 3.09 to 3.94]; P < .001) in 2017 (P < .001 for interaction). Adjusted mortality rates from the model without HCC were not significantly different between CAHs and non-CAHs in all years except 2007 (12.19% vs 11.74%; difference, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.79]; P = .008) and 2010 (12.71% vs 12.28%; difference, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.77]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceFor rural Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized from 2007 to 2017, CAHs submitted significantly fewer hospital diagnosis codes than non-CAHs, and short-term mortality rates adjusted for preexisting conditions but not in-hospital comorbidity measures were not significantly different by hospital type in most years. The findings suggest that short-term mortality outcomes at CAHs may not differ from those of non-CAHs after accounting for different coding practices for in-hospital comorbidities.
| S-EPMC7403917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur aim was to investigate whether self-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization affects the number of dispensing errors, perceptions regarding medication, and participant satisfaction when compared with nurse-led medication dispensing.MethodsA pragmatic randomized controlled trial was performed in a Danish cardiology unit. Patients aged ⩾ 18 years capable of SAM were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, or did not speak Danish.Intervention group participants self-administered their medication. In the control group, medication was dispensed and administered by nurses.The primary outcome was the proportion of dispensing errors collected through modified disguised observation of participants and nurses. Dispensing errors were divided into clinical and procedural errors.Secondary outcomes were explored through telephone calls to determine participant perceptions regarding medication and satisfaction, and finally, deviations in their medication list two weeks after discharge.ResultsSignificantly fewer dispensing errors were observed in the intervention group, with 100 errors/1033 opportunities for error (9.7%), compared with 132 errors/1028 opportunities for error (12.8%) in the control group. The number of clinical errors was significantly reduced, whereas no difference in procedural errors was observed. At follow up, those who were self-administering medication had fewer concerns regarding their medication, found medication to be less harmful, were more satisfied, preferred this opportunity in the future, and had fewer deviations in their medication list after discharge compared with the control group.ConclusionIn conclusion, the reduced number of dispensing errors in the intervention group, indicate that SAM is safe. In addition, SAM had a positive impact on (a) perceptions regarding medication, thus suggesting increased medication adherence, (b) deviations in medication list after discharge, and (c) participant satisfaction related to medication management at the hospital.
| S-EPMC7225786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate effectiveness and acceptability of medication abortion with mifepristone dispensed by pharmacists.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study at eight clinical sites and pharmacies in California and Washington State from July 2018 to March 2020. Pharmacists at participating pharmacies underwent a 1-hour training on medication abortion. We approached patients who had already been evaluated, counseled, and consented for medication abortion per standard of care. Patients interested in study participation gave consent, and the clinician electronically sent a prescription to the pharmacy for mifepristone 200 mg orally, followed 24-48 hours later by misoprostol 800 micrograms buccally. Participants were sent web-based surveys about their experience and outcomes on days 2 and 14 after enrollment and had routine follow-up with study sites. We extracted demographic and clinical data, including abortion outcome and adverse events, from medical records. We performed multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of pharmacy experience and other covariates with satisfaction.ResultsWe enrolled 266 participants and obtained clinical outcome information for 262 (98.5%), of whom two reported not taking either medication. Of the 260 participants with abortion outcome information, 252 (96.9%) and 237 (91.2%) completed day 2 and 14 surveys, respectively. Complete medication abortion (primary outcome) occurred for 243 participants (93.5%, 95% CI 89.7-96.1%). Four participants (1.5%, 95% CI 0.4-3.9%) had an adverse event, none of which was serious or related to pharmacist dispensing. In the day 2 survey, 91.3% (95% CI 87.1-94.4%) of participants reported satisfaction with the pharmacy experience. In the day 14 survey, 84.4% (95% CI 79.1-88.8%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion experience. Those reporting being very satisfied with the pharmacy experience had higher odds of reporting overall satisfaction with medication abortion (adjusted odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.32).ConclusionPharmacist dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion is effective and acceptable to patients, with a low prevalence of adverse events.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03320057.
| S-EPMC7984759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medication administration errors (MAEs) occur frequently in hospitals and may compromise patient safety. Preventive strategies are needed to reduce the risk of MAEs. The primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of central automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration on the prevalence of MAEs. Secondary aims were to assess the effect on the type and potential severity of MAEs. Furthermore, compliance with procedures regarding scanning of patient and medication barcodes and nursing staff satisfaction with the medication administration system were assessed. We performed a prospective uncontrolled before-and-after study in six clinical wards in a Dutch university hospital from 2018 to 2020. MAE data were collected by observation. The primary outcome was the proportion of medication administrations with one or more MAEs. Secondary outcomes were the type and potential severity of MAEs, rates of compliance with patient identification and signing of administered medication by scanning and nursing staff satisfaction with the medication administration system. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used for the primary outcome to adjust for confounding and for clustering on nurse and patient level. One or more MAEs occurred in 291 of 1490 administrations (19.5%) pre-intervention and in 258 of 1630 administrations (15.8%) post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.96). The rate of omission fell from 4.6% to 2.0% and of wrong dose from 3.8% to 2.1%, whereas rates of other MAE types were similar. The rate of potentially harmful MAEs fell from 3.0% (n = 44) to 0.3% (n = 5). The rates of compliance with scanning of patient and medication barcode post-intervention were 13.6% and 55.9%, respectively.The median overall satisfaction score of the nurses with the medication administration system on a 100-point scale was 70 (interquartile range 63-75, n = 193) pre-intervention and 70 (interquartile range 60-78, n = 145) post-intervention (P = 0.626, Mann-Whitney U test). The implementation of central automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration was associated with a lower probability of MAEs, including potentially harmful errors, but more compliance with scanning procedures is needed. Nurses were moderately satisfied with the medication administration system, both before and after implementation. In conclusion, despite low compliance with scanning procedures, this study shows that this intervention contributes to the improvement of medication safety in hospitals.
| S-EPMC8678992 | biostudies-literature