Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of different medication safety measures for the emergency department: physicians' usage and acceptance of training, poster, checklist and computerized decision support.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although usage and acceptance are important factors for a successful implementation of clinical decision support systems for medication, most studies only concentrate on their design and outcome. Our objective was to comparatively investigate a set of traditional medication safety measures such as medication safety training for physicians, paper-based posters and checklists concerning potential medication problems versus the additional benefit of a computer-assisted medication check. We concentrated on usage, acceptance and suitability of such interventions in a busy emergency department (ED) of a 749 bed acute tertiary care hospital.

Methods

A retrospective, qualitative evaluation study was conducted using a field observation and a questionnaire-based survey. Six physicians were observed while treating 20 patient cases; the questionnaire, based on the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2), has been answered by nine ED physicians.

Results

During field observations, we did not observe direct use of any of the implemented interventions for medication safety (paper-based and electronic). Questionnaire results indicated that the electronic medication safety check was the most frequently used intervention, followed by checklist and posters. However, despite their positive attitude, physicians most often stated that they use the interventions in only up to ten percent for subjectively "critical" orders. Main reasons behind the low usage were deficits in ease-of-use and fit to the workflow. The intention to use the interventions was rather high after overcoming these barriers.

Conclusions

Methodologically, the study contributes to Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) research in an ED setting and confirms TAM2 as a helpful diagnostic tool in identifying barriers for a successful implementation of medication safety interventions. In our case, identified barriers explaining the low utilization of the implemented medication safety interventions - despite their positive reception - include deficits in accessibility, briefing for the physicians about the interventions, ease-of-use and compatibility to the working environment.

SUBMITTER: Sedlmayr B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3733614 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative evaluation of different medication safety measures for the emergency department: physicians' usage and acceptance of training, poster, checklist and computerized decision support.

Sedlmayr Brita B Patapovas Andrius A Kirchner Melanie M Sonst Anja A Müller Fabian F Pfistermeister Barbara B Plank-Kiegele Bettina B Vogler Renate R Criegee-Rieck Manfred M Prokosch Hans-Ulrich HU Dormann Harald H Maas Renke R Bürkle Thomas T

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20130729

<h4>Background</h4>Although usage and acceptance are important factors for a successful implementation of clinical decision support systems for medication, most studies only concentrate on their design and outcome. Our objective was to comparatively investigate a set of traditional medication safety measures such as medication safety training for physicians, paper-based posters and checklists concerning potential medication problems versus the additional benefit of a computer-assisted medication ...[more]

PMID: 23890121

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can improve care by bridging knowledge to practice gaps. However, the real-world uptake of such systems in health care settings has been suboptimal. We sought to: (1) use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify determinants (barriers/enablers) of uptake of the Electronic Asthma Management System (eAMS) CDSS; (2) match identified TDF belief statements to elements in the Guideline Implementation with Decision Support (GUIDES) Checklist; and (3) explore the relationship between the TDF and GUIDES frameworks and the usefulness of this sequential approach for identifying opportunities to improve CDSS uptake.MethodsIn Phase 1, we conducted semistructured interviews with primary care physicians in Toronto, Canada regarding the uptake of the eAMS CDSS. Using content analysis, two coders independently analyzed interview transcripts guided by the TDF to generate themes representing barriers and enablers to CDSS uptake. In Phase 2, the same reviewers independently mapped each belief statement to a GUIDES domain and factor. We calculated the proportion of TDF belief statements that linked to each GUIDES domain and the proportion of TDF domains that linked to GUIDES factors (and vice-versa) and domains.ResultsWe interviewed 10 participants before data saturation. In Phase 1, we identified 53 belief statements covering 12 TDF domains; 18 (34.0%) were barriers, and 35 (66.0%) were enablers. In Phase 2, 41 statements (77.4%) linked to at least one GUIDES factor, while 12 (22.6%) did not link to any specific factor. The GUIDES Context Domain was linked to the largest number of belief statements (19/53; 35.8%). Each TDF domain linked to one or more GUIDES factor, with 6 TDF domains linking to more than 1 factor and 8 TDF domains linking to more than 1 GUIDES domain.ConclusionsThe TDF provides unique insights into barriers and enablers to CDSS uptake, which can then be mapped to GUIDES domains and factors to identify required changes to CDSS context, content, and system. This can be followed by conventional mapping of TDF domains to behaviour change techniques to optimize CDSS implementation. This novel step-wise approach combines two established frameworks to optimize CDSS interventions, and requires prospective validation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Emergency departments (EDs) frequently care for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine (BUP) is an effective treatment option for patients with OUD that can safely be initiated in the ED. At present, BUP is rarely initiated as a part of routine ED care. Clinical decision support (CDS) could accelerate adoption of ED-initiated BUP into routine emergency care. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to design and formatively evaluate a user-centered decision support tool for ED initiation of BUP for patients with OUD. METHODS:User-centered design with iterative prototype development was used. Initial observations and interviews identified workflows and information needs. The design team and key stakeholders reviewed prototype designs to ensure accuracy. A total of 5 prototypes were evaluated and iteratively refined based on input from 26 attending and resident physicians. RESULTS:Early feedback identified concerns with the initial CDS design: an alert with several screens. The timing of the alert led to quick dismissal without using the tool. User feedback on subsequent iterations informed the development of a flexible tool to support clinicians with varied levels of experience with the intervention by providing both one-click options for direct activation of care pathways and user-activated support for critical decision points. The final design resolved challenging navigation issues through targeted placement, color, and design of the decision support modules and care pathways. In final testing, users expressed that the tool could be easily learned without training and was reasonable for use during routine emergency care. CONCLUSIONS:A user-centered design process helped designers to better understand users' needs for a Web-based clinical decision tool to support ED initiation of BUP for OUD. The process identified varying needs across user experience and familiarity with the protocol, leading to a flexible design supporting both direct care pathways and user-initiated decision support.

Project description:BackgroundMedication-related problems are an important cause of emergency department (ED) visits, and medication errors are reported in up to 60% of ED patients. Procedures such as medication reconciliation and medication review can identify and prevent medication-related problems and medication errors. However, this work is often time-consuming. In EDs without pharmacists, medication reconciliation is the physician's responsibility, in addition to the primary assignments of examining and diagnosing the patient. The aim of this study was to identify how much time ED physicians spend on medication-related tasks when no pharmacists are present in the EDs.MethodsAn observational time-and-motion study of physicians in three EDs in Northern Norway was conducted using Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) to collect and time-stamp data. Observations were conducted in predefined two-hour observation sessions with a 1:1 relationship between observer and participant, during Monday to Friday between 8 am and 8 pm, from November 2020 to October 2021.ResultsIn total, 386 h of observations were collected during 225 observation sessions. A total of 8.7% of the physicians' work time was spent on medication-related tasks, of which most time was spent on oral communication about medications with other physicians (3.0%) and medication-related documentation (3.2%). Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on medication reconciliation tasks, which includes retrieving medication-related information directly from the patient, reading/retrieving written medication-related information, and medication-related documentation. Physicians spent 85.6% of the observed time on non-medication-related clinical or administrative tasks, and the remaining time was spent standby or moving between tasks.ConclusionIn three Norwegian EDs, physicians spent 8.7% of their work time on medication-related tasks, and 85.6% on other clinical or administrative tasks. Physicians spent 2.2 min per hour on tasks related to medication reconciliation. We worry that patient safety related tasks in the EDs receive little attention. Allocating dedicated resources like pharmacists to contribute with medication-related tasks could benefit both physicians and patients.

Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of different medication safety measures for the emergency department: physicians' usage and acceptance of training, poster, checklist and computerized decision support.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative evaluation of different medication safety measures for the emergency department: physicians' usage and acceptance of training, poster, checklist and computerized decision support.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets