Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness of self-administration of medication (SAM) schemes in the hospital setting: a systematic review of the literature.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-administration of medicines is believed to increase patients' understanding about their medication and to promote their independence and autonomy in the hospital setting. The effect of inpatient self-administration of medication (SAM) schemes on patients, staff and institutions is currently unclear.

Objective

To systematically review the literature relating to the effect of SAM schemes on the following outcomes: patient knowledge, patient compliance/medication errors, success in self-administration, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, staff workload, and costs.

Design

Keyword and text word searches of online databases were performed between January and March 2013. Included articles described and evaluated inpatient SAM schemes. Case studies and anecdotal studies were excluded.

Results

43 papers were included for final analysis. Due to the heterogeneity of results and unclear findings it was not possible to perform a quantitative synthesis of results. Participation in SAM schemes often led to increased knowledge about drugs and drug regimens, but not side effects. However, the effect of SAM schemes on patient compliance/medication errors was inconclusive. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with their involvement in SAM schemes.

Conclusions

SAM schemes appear to provide some benefits (e.g. increased patient knowledge), but their effect on other outcomes (e.g. compliance) is unclear. Few studies of high methodological quality using validated outcome measures exist. Inconsistencies in both measuring and reporting outcomes across studies make it challenging to compare results and draw substantive conclusions about the effectiveness of SAM schemes.

SUBMITTER: Richardson SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4252074 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of self-administration of medication (SAM) schemes in the hospital setting: a systematic review of the literature.

Richardson Suzanna J SJ Brooks Hannah L HL Bramley George G Coleman Jamie J JJ

PloS one 20141202 12

<h4>Background</h4>Self-administration of medicines is believed to increase patients' understanding about their medication and to promote their independence and autonomy in the hospital setting. The effect of inpatient self-administration of medication (SAM) schemes on patients, staff and institutions is currently unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review the literature relating to the effect of SAM schemes on the following outcomes: patient knowledge, patient compliance/medication erro ...[more]

PMID: 25463269

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of the study was to explore the impact of the implementation of an electronic prescribing and medication administration system (ePA) on the safety of medication administration in an inpatient hospital setting. Objectives were to compare the prevalence and types of: 1) medication administration errors, and 2) documentation discrepancies, between a paper and an ePA system. Additionally, we wanted to describe any observed changes to medication administration practices.The study was based on an elderly medicine ward in an English hospital. From December 2014 to June 2015, nurses' medication administration rounds were observed every 5 days before and after ePA implementation using an interrupted time-series approach. Medication administration error and documentation discrepancy rates pre- versus post-ePA were analysed descriptively and chi-squared tests used to test for any difference; segmented regression analysis was used to determine changes in longitudinal trend.Observations were made at 15 pre- and 15 post-ePA implementation time-points. Pre-ePA on paper, there were 18 medication administration errors in 428 opportunities for error (4.2%; 95% confidence interval 2.3-6.1%), and with ePA there were 18 in 528 (3.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9-5.0%; p = 0.64). Regarding documentation, pre-ePA on paper there were 5 discrepancies in 460 observed documentations (1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0%); with ePA there were 18 in 557 (3.2%; 95% confidence interval 1.8-4.7%; p = 0.04). The most common electronic documentation discrepancy was documentation that a dose had been administered when it had not. Segmented regression analysis was unable to detect any significant longitudinal changes. Changes to working practices post-ePA were observed, such as nurses demonstrating less-consistent self-checking when preparing and administering medications.Findings suggest no change in medication error rate, although ePA encourages certain types of errors and mitigates others. There was a statistically significant increase in documentation discrepancies which is likely to be due to adoption of new working practices with ePA.

Project description:PurposeMedications are mostly taken in patients' own homes, increasingly administered by carers, yet studies of medication safety have been largely conducted in the hospital setting. We aimed to review studies of how carers cause and/or prevent medication administration errors (MAEs) within the patient's home; to identify types, prevalence and causes of these MAEs and any interventions to prevent them.MethodsA narrative systematic review of literature published between 1 Jan 1946 and 23 Sep 2013 was carried out across the databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, COCHRANE and CINAHL. Empirical studies were included where carers were responsible for preventing/causing MAEs in the home and standardised tools used for data extraction and quality assessment.ResultsThirty-six papers met the criteria for narrative review, 33 of which included parents caring for children, two predominantly comprised adult children and spouses caring for older parents/partners, and one focused on paid carers mostly looking after older adults. The carer administration error rate ranged from 1.9 to 33% of medications administered and from 12 to 92.7% of carers administering medication. These included dosage errors, omitted administration, wrong medication and wrong time or route of administration. Contributory factors included individual carer factors (e.g. carer age), environmental factors (e.g. storage), medication factors (e.g. number of medicines), prescription communication factors (e.g. comprehensibility of instructions), psychosocial factors (e.g. carer-to-carer communication), and care-recipient factors (e.g. recipient age). The few interventions effective in preventing MAEs involved carer training and tailored equipment.ConclusionThis review shows that home medication administration errors made by carers are a potentially serious patient safety issue. Carers made similar errors to those made by professionals in other contexts and a wide variety of contributory factors were identified. The home care setting should be a priority for the development of patient safety interventions.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-administration of medication (SAM) during hospitalization is a complex intervention where patients are involved in their course of treatment. The study aim was to pilot test the SAM intervention. The objectives were to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial on the safety and cost-consequences of SAM during hospitalization.MethodsThe study was performed in a Danish cardiology unit.Patients ≥ 18 years capable of self-administering medication during hospitalization were eligible. Patients were excluded if they did not self-administer medication at home, were incapable of self-administering medication, were not prescribed medication suitable for self-administration, did not bring their medication, or were unable to speak Danish.Feasibility was assessed as part of the pilot study. A future randomized controlled trial was considered feasible if it was possible to recruit 60 patients within 3 months, if outcome measurement method was capable of detecting dispensing errors in both groups, and if patients in the intervention group were more satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization compared to the control group.Forty patients were recruited to gain experience about the intervention (self-administration). Additionally, 20 patients were randomized to the intervention or control group (nurse-led dispensing) to gain experience about the randomization procedure.Dispensing error proportions were based on data collected through disguised observation of patients and nurses during dispensing. The error proportion in the control group was used for the sample size calculation. Patient acceptability was assessed through telephone calls.ResultsOf the 60 patients recruited, one withdrew and 11 were discharged before observation resulting in analysis of 39 patients in the intervention group and nine in the control group. A dispensing error proportion of 3.4% was found in the intervention group and 16.1% in the control group. A total of 91.7% of patients in the intervention group and 66.7% in the control group were highly satisfied with the medication management during hospitalization. The overall protocol worked as planned. Minor changes in exclusion criteria, intervention, and outcome measures were considered.ConclusionsIt may be feasible to perform a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the safety and cost-consequences of self-administration of medication during hospitalization.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541421, retrospectively registered on 30 May 2018.

Project description:Background: Decentralization of health systems has made sub-national/regional healthcare systems the backbone of healthcare delivery. These regions are tasked with the difficult responsibility of determining healthcare priorities and resource allocation amidst scarce resources. We aimed to review empirical literature that evaluated priority setting practice at the meso level of health systems. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google scholar databases and supplemented these with manual searching for relevant studies, based on the reference list of selected papers. We only included empirical studies that described and evaluated, or those that only evaluated priority setting practice at the meso-level. A total of 16 papers were identified from LMICs and HICs. We analyzed data from the selected papers by thematic review. Results: Few studies used systematic priority setting processes, and all but one were from HICs. Both formal and informal criteria are used in priority-setting, however, informal criteria appear to be more perverse in LMICs compared to HICs. The priority setting process at the meso-level is a top-down approach with minimal involvement of the community. Accountability for reasonableness was the most common evaluative framework as it was used in 12 of the 16 studies. Efficiency, reallocation of resources and options for service delivery redesign were the most common outcome measures used to evaluate priority setting. Limitations: Our study was limited by the fact that there are very few empirical studies that have evaluated priority setting at the meso-level and there is likelihood that we did not capture all the studies. Conclusions: Improving priority setting practices at the meso level is crucial to strengthening health systems. This can be achieved through incorporating and adapting systematic priority setting processes and frameworks to the context where used, and making considerations of both process and outcome measures during priority setting and resource allocation.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness of self-administration of medication (SAM) schemes in the hospital setting: a systematic review of the literature.

Background

Objective

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of self-administration of medication (SAM) schemes in the hospital setting: a systematic review of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets