Dataset Information

Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the utility and ability of the novel prescribing very short answer (VSA) question format to identify the sources of undergraduate prescribing errors when compared with the conventional single best answer (SBA) question format and assess the acceptability of machine marking prescribing VSAs.

Design

A prospective study involving analysis of data generated from a pilot two-part prescribing assessment.

Setting

Two UK medical schools.

Participants

364 final year medical students took part. Participation was voluntary. There were no other inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Outcomes

(1) Time taken to mark and verify VSA questions (acceptability), (2) differences between VSA and SBA scores, (3) performance in VSA and (4) SBA format across different subject areas and types of prescribing error made in the VSA format.

Results

18?200 prescribing VSA questions were marked and verified in 91?min. The median percentage score for the VSA test was significantly lower than the SBA test (28% vs 64%, p<0.0001). Significantly more prescribing errors were detected in the VSA format than the SBA format across all domains, notably in prescribing insulin (96.4% vs 50.3%, p<0.0001), fluids (95.6% vs 55%, p<0.0001) and analgesia (85.7% vs 51%, p<0.0001). Of the incorrect VSA responses, 33.1% were due to the medication prescribed, 6.0% due to the dose, 1.4% due to the route and 4.8% due to the frequency.

Conclusions

Prescribing VSA questions represent an efficient tool for providing detailed insight into the sources of significant prescribing errors, which are not identified by SBA questions. This makes the prescribing VSA a valuable formative assessment tool to enhance students' skills in safe prescribing and to potentially reduce prescribing errors.

SUBMITTER: Sam AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6629393 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.

Sam Amir H AH Fung Chee Yeen CY Wilson Rebecca K RK Peleva Emilia E Kluth David C DC Lupton Martin M Owen David R DR Melville Colin R CR Meeran Karim K

BMJ open 20190709 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the utility and ability of the novel prescribing very short answer (VSA) question format to identify the sources of undergraduate prescribing errors when compared with the conventional single best answer (SBA) question format and assess the acceptability of machine marking prescribing VSAs.<h4>Design</h4>A prospective study involving analysis of data generated from a pilot two-part prescribing assessment.<h4>Setting</h4>Two UK medical schools.<h4>Participants</h4>364 ...[more]

PMID: 31289084

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The study aimed to compare candidate performance between traditional best-of-five single-best-answer (SBA) questions and very-short-answer (VSA) questions, in which candidates must generate their own answers of between one and five words. The primary objective was to determine if the mean positive cue rate for SBAs exceeded the null hypothesis guessing rate of 20%. DESIGN:This was a cross-sectional study undertaken in 2018. SETTING:20 medical schools in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:1417 volunteer medical students preparing for their final undergraduate medicine examinations (total eligible population across all UK medical schools approximately 7500). INTERVENTIONS:Students completed a 50-question VSA test, followed immediately by the same test in SBA format, using a novel digital exam delivery platform which also facilitated rapid marking of VSAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome measure was the mean positive cue rate across SBAs: the percentage of students getting the SBA format of the question correct after getting the VSA format incorrect. Internal consistency, item discrimination and the pass rate using Cohen standard setting for VSAs and SBAs were also evaluated, and a cost analysis in terms of marking the VSA was performed. RESULTS:The study was completed by 1417 students. Mean student scores were 21 percentage points higher for SBAs. The mean positive cue rate was 42.7% (95% CI 36.8% to 48.6%), one-sample t-test against ≤20%: t=7.53, p<0.001. Internal consistency was higher for VSAs than SBAs and the median item discrimination equivalent. The estimated marking cost was £2655 ($3500), with 24.5 hours of clinician time required (1.25 s per student per question). CONCLUSIONS:SBA questions can give a false impression of students' competence. VSAs appear to have greater authenticity and can provide useful information regarding students' cognitive errors, helping to improve learning as well as assessment. Electronic delivery and marking of VSAs is feasible and cost-effective.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Clinicians using clinical decision support (CDS) to prescribe medications have an obligation to ensure that prescriptions are safe. One option is to verify the safety of prescriptions if there is uncertainty, for example, by using drug references. Supervisory control experiments in aviation and process control have associated errors, with reduced verification arising from overreliance on decision support. However, it is unknown whether this relationship extends to clinical decision-making. Therefore, we examine whether there is a relationship between verification behaviors and prescribing errors, with and without CDS medication alerts, and whether task complexity mediates this. METHODS:A total of 120 students in the final 2 years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for patient scenarios using a simulated electronic prescribing system. CDS (correct, incorrect, and no CDS) and task complexity (low and high) were varied. Outcomes were omission (missed prescribing errors) and commission errors (accepted false-positive alerts). Verification measures were access of drug references and view time percentage of task time. RESULTS:Failure to access references for medicines with prescribing errors increased omission errors with no CDS (high-complexity: ? 2(1)?=?12.716; p?<?0.001) and incorrect CDS (Fisher's exact; low-complexity: p?=?0.002; high-complexity: p?=?0.001). Failure to access references for false-positive alerts increased commission errors (low-complexity: ? 2(1)?=?16.673, p?<?0.001; high-complexity: ? 2(1)?=?18.690, p?<?0.001). Fewer participants accessed relevant references with incorrect CDS compared with no CDS (McNemar; low-complexity: p?<?0.001; high-complexity: p?<?0.001). Lower view time percentages increased omission (F(3, 361.914)?=?4.498; p?=?0.035) and commission errors (F(1, 346.223)?=?2.712; p?=?0.045). View time percentages were lower in CDS-assisted conditions compared with unassisted conditions (F(2, 335.743)?=?10.443; p?<?0.001). DISCUSSION:The presence of CDS reduced verification of prescription safety. When CDS was incorrect, reduced verification was associated with increased prescribing errors. CONCLUSION:CDS can be incorrect, and verification provides one mechanism to detect errors. System designers need to facilitate verification without increasing workload or eliminating the benefits of correct CDS.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The huge amount of biomedical-molecular data increasingly produced is providing scientists with potentially valuable information. Yet, such data quantity makes difficult to find and extract those data that are most reliable and most related to the biomedical questions to be answered, which are increasingly complex and often involve many different biomedical-molecular aspects. Such questions can be addressed only by comprehensively searching and exploring different types of data, which frequently are ordered and provided by different data sources. Search Computing has been proposed for the management and integration of ranked results from heterogeneous search services. Here, we present its novel application to the explorative search of distributed biomedical-molecular data and the integration of the search results to answer complex biomedical questions. RESULTS: A set of available bioinformatics search services has been modelled and registered in the Search Computing framework, and a Bioinformatics Search Computing application (Bio-SeCo) using such services has been created and made publicly available at http://www.bioinformatics.deib.polimi.it/bio-seco/seco/. It offers an integrated environment which eases search, exploration and ranking-aware combination of heterogeneous data provided by the available registered services, and supplies global results that can support answering complex multi-topic biomedical questions. CONCLUSIONS: By using Bio-SeCo, scientists can explore the very large and very heterogeneous biomedical-molecular data available. They can easily make different explorative search attempts, inspect obtained results, select the most appropriate, expand or refine them and move forward and backward in the construction of a global complex biomedical query on multiple distributed sources that could eventually find the most relevant results. Thus, it provides an extremely useful automated support for exploratory integrated bio search, which is fundamental for Life Science data driven knowledge discovery.

Project description:It has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors.This study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors.Pharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors.Pharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6-9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80-2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89-2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61-1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders.The problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

Project description:Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Dataset Information

Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Outcomes

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets