Dataset Information

Development of a Documentation Rubric and Assessment of Pharmacists' Competency for Documentation in the Patient Health Record.

ABSTRACT: Background:Documentation of information in the health record by pharmacists is vital to patient care. Failure to document, or failure to document appropriately, may have negative effects on patients. Objectives:The primary objective was to determine pharmacists' competency in 18 elements of chart note documentation at 2 tertiary care centres and 1 rehabilitation centre. The secondary objectives were to quantify the number of episodes of documentation by pharmacists, to characterize the clinical activities associated with this documentation, and to determine whether there were differences in level of competency according to years of hospital experience, additional clinical training, and note type. Methods:This study used prospective audit methodology. Notes documented during a 6-week study period (February to April 2015) were assessed using a rubric specifically created to evaluate 18 of the essential elements of documentation, as defined by the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. Four of the elements of chart note documentation were assessed on a yes/no basis, and Bloom's taxonomy was used to define the level of competency for the other 14 elements. Values were assigned to each level and were then used to calculate mean scores. Results:A total of 115 pharmacist notes, created by 29 of the 35 pharmacists included in the study, were assessed. The mean competency score per pharmacist was 2.2 (standard deviation [SD] 0.3; maximum score 3). Elements of documentation with the highest level of competency were diplomatic tone, conciseness, and clarity; elements with the lowest level of competency were medication list, note title, monitoring, and drug-related problem statements. The most frequent note types concerned drug-related problems (50 [43%]), pharmacokinetics (25 [22%]), and patient education (19 [17%]). Levels of competency were highest for notes related to patient education (mean 2.4, SD 0.2) and lowest for notes concerning drug-related problems (mean 2.1, SD 0.3) and notes providing clarification (mean 2.1, SD 0.3). The level of competency was not significantly affected by additional clinical training or years of hospital experience. Conclusions:Pharmacists in this study documented concisely, clearly, and in a diplomatic tone; however, there was room for improvement in the frequency and elements of chart note documentation in the patient health record.

SUBMITTER: Baranski B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5737184 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a Documentation Rubric and Assessment of Pharmacists' Competency for Documentation in the Patient Health Record.

Baranski Brittany B Bolt Jennifer J Albers Lori L Siddiqui Rabiah R Bell Ali A Semchuk William W

The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy 20171101 6

<h4>Background</h4>Documentation of information in the health record by pharmacists is vital to patient care. Failure to document, or failure to document appropriately, may have negative effects on patients.<h4>Objectives</h4>The primary objective was to determine pharmacists' competency in 18 elements of chart note documentation at 2 tertiary care centres and 1 rehabilitation centre. The secondary objectives were to quantify the number of episodes of documentation by pharmacists, to characteriz ...[more]

PMID: 29299001

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceElectronic health records are a potentially valuable source of information for identifying patients with opioid use disorder (OUD).ObjectiveTo evaluate whether proxy measures from electronic health record data can be used reliably to identify patients with probable OUD based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) criteria.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed individuals within the Geisinger health system who were prescribed opioids between December 31, 2000, and May 31, 2017, using a mixed-methods approach. The cohort was identified from 16 253 patients enrolled in a contract-based, Geisinger-specific medication monitoring program (GMMP) for opioid use, including patients who maintained or violated contract terms, as well as a demographically matched control group of 16 253 patients who were prescribed opioids but not enrolled in the GMMP. Substance use diagnoses and psychiatric comorbidities were assessed using automated electronic health record summaries. A manual medical record review procedure using DSM-5 criteria for OUD was completed for a subset of patients. The analysis was conducted beginning from June 5, 2017, until May 29, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the prevalence of OUD as defined by proxy measures for DSM-5 criteria for OUD as well as the prevalence of comorbidities among patients prescribed opioids within an integrated health system.ResultsAmong the 16 253 patients enrolled in the GMMP (9309 women [57%]; mean [SD] age, 52 [14] years), OUD diagnoses as defined by diagnostic codes were present at a much lower rate than expected (291 [2%]), indicating the necessity for alternative diagnostic strategies. The DSM-5 criteria for OUD can be assessed using manual medical record review; a manual review of 200 patients in the GMMP and 200 control patients identifed a larger percentage of patients with probable moderate to severe OUD (GMMP, 145 of 200 [73%]; and control, 27 of 200 [14%]) compared with the prevalence of OUD assessed using diagnostic codes.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that patients with OUD may be identified using information available in the electronic health record, even when diagnostic codes do not reflect this diagnosis. Furthermore, the study demonstrates the utility of coding for DSM-5 criteria from medical records to generate a quantitative DSM-5 score that is associated with OUD severity.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacists in the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region (RQHR), Saskatchewan, independently dose, monitor, and adjust vancomycin therapy. No framework exists for ongoing competency assessment of pharmacists.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to determine pharmacists' overall level of competency for all components of the vancomycin prescribing procedure. The secondary objectives were to determine competency for individual prescribing phases, to stratify overall competency in relation to pharmacist and patient factors, and to identify the 3 most frequent errors.MethodsA retrospective chart audit was performed of patients who received a prescription for vancomycin between November 1, 2015, and January 31, 2016. Patients were included if they received pharmacist-prescribed vancomycin as an inpatient or outpatient of an RQHR facility. Patients under the care of a pediatrician, those receiving vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis or via any route other than the IV route, and those whose vancomycin was prescribed by a current pharmacy resident were excluded. A rubric was created that assigned a numeric value for the appropriate completion of various procedure criteria.ResultsA total of 326 patients received vancomycin during the study period, of whom 200 met the inclusion criteria, representing 511 discrete episodes of prescribing by 42 pharmacists. The median overall competency rate, for all phases of prescribing, was 100% (interquartile range [IQR] 90.1%-100%). The median competency rates for the empiric therapy and monitoring phases were 94.4% (IQR 88.9%-100%) and 100% (IQR 87.5%-100%), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in relation to pharmacists' experience or postbaccalaureate education, patients' level of acuity, or timing of prescribing. The competency score was significantly higher among pharmacists prescribing for patients with normal renal function than among those prescribing for patients with reduced renal function (p = 0.008). The 3 most common errors were failure to document risk factors for nephrotoxicity, failure to document requirement to obtain future trough levels, and failure to document that samples for trough levels had been drawn correctly.ConclusionsDuring the study period, pharmacists at RQHR showed competency in all phases of vancomycin prescribing using the approved procedure. Documentation of clinical plans and assessments was identified as an area for improvement.

Project description:ImportanceSurgical coaching continues to gain momentum as an innovative method for continuous professional development. A tool to measure the performance of a surgical coach is needed to provide formative feedback to coaches for continued skill development and to assess the fidelity of a coaching intervention for future research and dissemination.ObjectiveTo evaluate the validity of the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Rubric (WiSCoR), a novel tool to assess the performance of a peer surgical coach.Design, setting, and participantsSurgical coaching sessions from November 2014 through February 2018 conducted by 2 statewide peer surgical coaching programs were audio recorded and transcribed. Twelve raters used WiSCoR to rate the performance of the surgical coach for each session. The study included peer surgical coaches in the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Program (n = 8) and the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative coaching program (n = 15). The data were analyzed in 2019.Interventions or exposuresUse of WiSCoR to rate peer surgical coaching sessions.Main outcomes and measuresThere were 282 WiSCoR ratings from the 106 coaching sessions included in the study. WiSCoR was evaluated using a framework, including inter-rater reliability assessed with Gwet weighted agreement coefficent. Descriptive statistics of WiSCoR were calculated.ResultsEight coaches (35%) and 11 coachees (29%) were from the Wisconsin Surgical Program and 15 coaches (65%) and 27 coachees (71%) were from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. The validity of WiSCoR is supported by high interrater reliability (Gwet weighted agreement coefficient, 0.87) as well as a weakly positive correlation of WiSCoR to coachee ratings of coaches (r = 0.22; P = .04), rigorous content development, consistent rater training, and the association of WiSCoR with coach and coaching program development. The mean (SD) overall coach performance rating using WiSCoR was 3.23 (0.82; range, 1-5).Conclusions and relevanceWiSCoR is a reliable measure that can assess the performance of a surgical coach, inform fidelity to coaching principles, and provide formative feedback to surgical coaches. While coachee ratings may reflect coachee satisfaction, they are not able to determine the quality of a coach.

Project description:IntroductionLearning health systems (LHS) science is fundamentally a transdisciplinary field. To capture the breadth of the competencies of an LHS scientist, AHRQ and national experts defined a series of 42 competencies across seven domains that support success. Clinicians, researchers, and leaders who are new to the LHS field can identify and prioritize proficiency development among these domains. In addition, existing leaders and researchers will assemble teams of experts who together represent the LHS science domains. To serve LHS workforce development and proficiency assessment, the AHRQ-funded ACCELERAT K12 training program recruited domain experts and trainees to define and operationalize items to include in an LHS Competency Assessment to support emerging and existing LHS scientists in prioritizing and monitoring proficiency development.MethodsSequential interviews with 18 experts iteratively defined skills and tasks to illustrate stage in proficiency, and its progression, for each of 42 competencies in the seven LHS expertise domains: systems science; research questions and standards of scientific evidence; research methods; informatics; ethics of research and implementation in health systems; improvement and implementation science; and engagement, leadership, and research management. An educational assessment expert and LHS scientist refined the assessment criteria at each stage to use parallel language across domains. Last, current trainees reviewed and pilot tested the assessment and the LHS Competency Assessment was further refined using their feedback. The assessment framework was informed by Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson and Krathwohl, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, 2001) where learning progresses from recalling, defining, understanding, and awareness at the lower levels of the taxonomy, to applying and adopting and finally to creating, designing, and critiquing at the upper levels of the taxonomy. We also developed assessment criteria that could be used for longer term assessment of direct performance. Van der Vleuten et al. (Best Pract Res Clin Obstetr Gynaecol. 2010;24(6):703-719) define longer term direct assessment methods as assessment that occurs over a period ranging from weeks to even years and involves multiple assessment methods and exposure to the learner's work over an extended period.ResultsThis experience report describes the content of the LHS Competency Assessment. For each domain and competency, the assessment lists examples of evidence to support expertise at each level of proficiency: no exposure; foundational (awareness/understanding); emerging (early application); and proficient (application with a high level of skill). Trainees begin with baseline standard assessment tables, where they can indicate no exposure or mark the foundational and emerging skills with which they have competence. For domains where foundational and emerging skills have been achieved, users can move on to assessment tables that list evidence of proficiency.ConclusionThe LHS Competency Assessment offers consistent, graded criteria across the seven LHS domains to guide trainees and mentors to evaluate progress from no experience to foundational knowledge, emerging proficiency, and proficiency. The assessment can also be used to design training and mentoring for those newly exposed to LHS science and for those with key expertise who wish to expand LHS expertise.

Project description:(1) Background: My Health Record (MHR) is a relatively new nationwide Australian digital health record system accessible by patients and a range of healthcare professionals. Pharmacists will be key contributors and users of the MHR system, yet little is known about the perceived barriers and benefits of use. (2) Objective: To explore pharmacists' perspectives related to potential benefits and barriers associated with use of MHR. (3) Methods: An online survey was developed and face-validated. The survey was advertised to Australian pharmacists on pharmacy professional bodies' websites. This was a cross-sectional study using an anonymous questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distribution of the data. Chi-square, Kendall's tau coefficient (tau-c) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine the relationships where appropriate. (4) Results: A total of 63 pharmacists completed the survey. The majority of respondents worked in a metropolitan area (74%), and the most common workplace setting was community pharmacy (65%). Perceived benefits identified by responders include that the use of MHR would help with continuity of care (90%), and that it would improve the safety (71%) and quality (75%) of care they provided. Importantly, more than half of pharmacists surveyed agreed that MHR could reduce medication errors during dispensing (57%) and could improve professional relationships with patients (57%) and general practitioners (59%). Potential barriers identified by pharmacists included patients' concerns about privacy (81%), pharmacists' own concern about privacy (46%), lack of training, access to and confidence in using the system. Sixty six percent of respondents had concerns about the accuracy of information contained within MHR, particularly among hospital and general practice pharmacists (p = 0.016) and almost half (44%) had concerns about the security of information in the system, mainly pharmacists working at general practice and providing medication review services (p = 0.007). Overall satisfaction with MHR varied, with 48% satisfied, 33% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 19% dissatisfied, with a higher satisfaction rate among younger pharmacists (p = 0.032). (5) Conclusions: Pharmacists considered that the MHR offered key potential benefits, notably improving the safety and quality of care provided. To optimize the use of MHR, there is a need to improve privacy and data security measures, and to ensure adequate provision of user support and education surrounding the ability to integrate use of MHR with existing workflows and software.

Dataset Information

Development of a Documentation Rubric and Assessment of Pharmacists' Competency for Documentation in the Patient Health Record.

Publications

Development of a Documentation Rubric and Assessment of Pharmacists' Competency for Documentation in the Patient Health Record.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets