Dataset Information

Provider knowledge and performance in medication injection safety in anesthesia: A mixed method prospective crosses sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Injection safety during anesthesia is a challenging health care issue in Iranian hospitals. Anesthesia is one of the most medication-intensive procedures in healthcare and injecting patients are an integral part of that care. The present study aimed to assess the status of medication injection safety practice in a teaching center.

Design, setting, participants

A prospective cross-sectional study was done in 2014-2015 at a 500-bed secondary level teaching hospital affiliated with Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Iran. The study population included providers of anesthesia in two groups of operating rooms (ORs) with different types of surgeries at the center. Data were collected using valid and reliable observation and a questionnaire instruments in two consecutive phases. Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation tests were used for data analyses.

Results

A total of 345 injections were observed and recorded during the study period, 53% in group A ORs, and 47% in group B ORs. Eighty-two questionnaires were completed (96.5% response rate) to determine hospital injection practices and personal knowledge of injection safety. Adherence to safety requirements was observed in 58.5% of injections. Fifty five percent of respondents knew that hepatitis B, C, and HIV are blood borne diseases. Observed compliance with injection safety requirements was determined significant by OR groups (P = 0.00). Correlation was significant between observed injection safety practices by age and work experience (P = 0.00). The Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference (P = 0.000) in observed safe injection practices among four job groups but not in reported adherence. Knowledge of respondents was significant by job groups about blood borne diseases and receiving three doses of hepatitis B vaccine.

Conclusions

The study revealed that some of safe injection procedures were well carried out in our ORs, but that others were not. The reported adherence of staff was acceptable but their actual practices were unsafe. It is suggested to implement audits, provide safer supplies, and complete Hepatitis B vaccination of injection providers.

SUBMITTER: Yusefzadeh H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6281201 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Provider knowledge and performance in medication injection safety in anesthesia: A mixed method prospective crosses sectional study.

Yusefzadeh Hasan H Didarloo Alireza A Nabilou Bahram B

PloS one 20181205 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>Injection safety during anesthesia is a challenging health care issue in Iranian hospitals. Anesthesia is one of the most medication-intensive procedures in healthcare and injecting patients are an integral part of that care. The present study aimed to assess the status of medication injection safety practice in a teaching center.<h4>Design, setting, participants</h4>A prospective cross-sectional study was done in 2014-2015 at a 500-bed secondary level teaching hospital affili ...[more]

PMID: 30517128

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge of medical conditions and their evidence-based medications varies among individuals. This range of knowledge may affect attitudes and influence medical decision-making of both patients and providers. Perceptions may be even more impactful in pregnancy, a timeframe subject to bias, and in diseases that include behavioral symptoms and often carry significant societal stigma, such as opioid use disorder (OUD). We present our findings from a survey assessing participants' knowledge of three distinct medical conditions (diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, and OUD) and how this knowledge affects perceptions of these disease states during pregnancy.MethodsUsing existing surveys in the literature as a guideline, we designed a cross-sectional survey including multiple-choice questions to evaluate our hypothesis that less knowledge about a medical condition would result in more negative opinions towards that condition and its treatment throughout pregnancy. Participants responded to perception statements using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree"). Surveys were administered to patients in prenatal care, patients in OUD treatment, medical students, and medical residents within a single institution. Response means were generated and compared using t tests and ANOVA.ResultsA total of 323 participants completed the survey. There were differences in knowledge between respondent groups and by disease state, with prenatal patients having the least knowledge of all groups about OUD diagnosis (88.5% of prenatal patients answered correctly) and its treatment (91.8% answered correctly). Overall Likert means of all responses demonstrated that participants agreed that new mothers with OUD (mean 4.27, 5 = "strongly agree") and their babies (4.12) would have challenges that others would not, compared to mothers with bipolar disorder (4.03) and their babies (3.60) as well as mothers with diabetes (3.87) and their babies (3.47), p < .001. Overall, respondents were likely to agree that women with OUD should not try to get pregnant (3.47), whereas they overall disagreed with that statement when it pertained to women with bipolar disorder (2.69, 2 = "disagree") or diabetes (2.12), p = 0.03.ConclusionsWith this single-center study, we found that, though there were gaps in knowledge regarding disease and disease treatment during pregnancy, less knowledge was not associated with more negative perceptions of disease and disease treatment during pregnancy. Perceptions were especially negative toward pregnant women with OUD. Increasing awareness of lived experiences of patients with disease, as well as the biases carried by both patients and providers, could improve treatment of chronic diseases and outcomes for patients.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently.ObjectiveQuantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for differences.MethodsThis explanatory retrospective mixed-method study consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative part. Patients from six hospitals and six different wards i.e. orthopaedics, surgery, pulmonary diseases, internal medicine, cardiology and gastroenterology were included. At these wards, MedRec was implemented both on hospital admission and discharge. The number of pharmacy interventions was collected and classified in two subcategories. First, the number of interventions to resolve unintended discrepancies (elimination of differences between listed medication and the patient's actual medication use). And second, the number of medication optimizations (optimization of pharmacotherapy e.g. eliminating double medication). Based on these quantitative results and interviews, a focus group was performed to give insight in local MedRec processes to address differences in context between hospitals. Descriptive analysis (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative) was used.ResultsOn admission 765 (85%) patients from six hospitals, received MedRec by trained nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmaceutical consultants or pharmacists. Of those, 36-95% (mean per patient 2.2 (SD ± 2.4)) had at least one discrepancy. Upon discharge, these numbers were among 632 (70%) of patients, 5-28% (mean per patient 0.7 (SD 1.2)). Optimizations in pharmacotherapy were implemented for 2% (0.4-3.7 interventions per patient upon admission) to 95% (0.1-1.7 interventions per patient upon discharge) of patients. The main themes explaining differences in numbers of interventions were patient-mix, the type of healthcare professionals involved, where and when patient interviews for MedRec were performed and finally, embedding and extent of medication optimization.ConclusionsHospitals differed greatly in the number of interventions performed during MedRec. Differences in execution of MedRec and local context determines the number of interventions. This study can support hospitals who want to optimize MedRec processes.

Project description:BackgroundThe strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed.MethodsA mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments.ResultsData was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy.ConclusionsAlthough similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence from diverse areas of medicine (e.g., cardiovascular disease, diabetes) indicates that healthcare providers (HCPs) often do not adhere to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) despite a clear indication to implement recommendations-a phenomenon commonly termed clinical inertia. There are a variety of reasons for clinical inertia, but HCP-related factors (e.g., knowledge, motivation, agreement with guidelines) are the most salient and amenable to intervention aimed to improve adherence. CPGs have been developed to support the safe and effective prescription of opioid medication for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. The extent of physician uptake and adherence to such guidelines is not yet well understood. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the published evidence about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices that HCPs hold regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS:An experienced information specialist will perform searches of CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. The Cochrane library, PROSPERO, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be searched for systematic reviews. Searches will be performed from inception to the present. Quantitative and qualitative study designs that report on HCP knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices in North America will be eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting on interventions to improve HCP adherence to opioid prescribing CPGs will also be eligible for inclusion. Two trained graduate-level research assistants will independently screen articles for inclusion, perform data extraction, and perform risk of bias and quality assessment using recommended tools. Confidence in qualitative evidence will be evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Confidence in quantitative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION:The ultimate goal of this work is to support interventions aiming to optimize opioid prescribing practices in order to prevent opioid-related morbidity and mortality without restricting a HCP's ability to select the most appropriate treatment for an individual patient. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018091640 .

Dataset Information

Provider knowledge and performance in medication injection safety in anesthesia: A mixed method prospective crosses sectional study.

Objectives

Design, setting, participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Provider knowledge and performance in medication injection safety in anesthesia: A mixed method prospective crosses sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets