Dataset Information

Assessing the quality of medication documentation: development and feasibility of the MediDocQ instrument for retrospective chart review in the hospital setting.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The medication process requires clear and transparent documentation in patient records. Incomplete or incorrect medication documentation may contribute to inappropriate clinical decision-making and adverse events. To comprehensively assess the quality of in-hospital medication documentation, we developed a retrospective chart review (RCR) instrument. We report on the development process, the feasibility of the instrument and describe our application of the instrument to a sample of patient records.

Design

Cross-sectional study using an RCR instrument to evaluate paper-based, non-standardised prescription and medication administration charts (MediDocQ).

Setting

Two German university hospitals.

Participants

Records from 1361 patients admitted between April and July 2015 were evaluated.

Methods

The MediDocQ development process comprised six consecutive stages: focused literature review, web-based search, initial patient record screening, review by project advisory board, focus groups with professionals and pilot testing. The final 54-item RCR instrument covers three key components of medication documentation: (1) completeness of documented information (including prescription, medication administration and pro re nata (PRN) medication), (2) quality of transcriptions and (3) compliance with chart structure, legibility, handling of deletions and chart corrections. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values, SD, median and interquartile ranges for individual items.

Results

Overall, 33 out of 54 items resulted in mean values above 0.75, indicating high-quality medication documentation. Documentation quality was particularly compromised for verbal and PRN orders (which involve more steps than standard orders) and when documentation was not completed at the same time as medication administration.

Conclusions

MediDocQ is a patient safety instrument that can be used to evaluate the quality of medication documentation and identify components of the process where intervention is required. In our setting, standardisation of medication documentation, particularly regarding medication administration and PRN medication is a priority.

SUBMITTER: Hammer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need to improve quality of care to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity from surgical diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge about how evidence-based health system strengthening interventions can be implemented effectively to improve quality of care in these settings. To address this gap, we have developed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve nursing documentation in a low-income country hospital setting. The aim of this pilot project is to test the intervention within the surgical department of a national referral hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone.MethodsThis project was co-developed and co-designed by in-country stakeholders and UK-based researchers, after a multiple-methodology assessment of needs (qualitative, quantitative), guided by a participatory 'Theory of Change' process. It has a mixed-method, quasi-experimental evaluation design underpinned by implementation and improvement science theoretical approaches. It consists of three distinct phases-(1) pre-implementation(project set up and review of hospital relevant policies and forms), (2) intervention implementation (awareness drive, training package, audit and feedback), and (3) evaluation of (a) the feasibility of delivering the intervention and capturing implementation and process outcomes, (b) the impact of implementation strategies on the adoption, integration, and uptake of the intervention using implementation outcomes, (c) the intervention's effectiveness For improving nursing in this pilot setting.DiscussionWe seek to test whether it is possible to deliver and assess a set of theory-driven interventions to improve the quality of nursing documentation using quality improvement and implementation science methods and frameworks in a single facility in Sierra Leone. The results of this study will inform the design of a large-scale effectiveness-implementation study for improving nursing documentation practices for patients throughout hospitals in Sierra Leone.Trial registrationProtocol version number 6, date: 24.12.2020, recruitment is planned to begin: January 2021, recruitment will be completed: December 2021.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Documentation in the medical record facilitates the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Few studies have assessed the quality of outpatient medical record documentation, and to the authors' knowledge, none has conclusively determined the correlates of chart documentation. We therefore undertook the present study to measure the rates of documentation of quality of care measures in an outpatient primary care practice setting that utilizes an electronic medical record. METHODS:We reviewed electronic medical records from 834 patients receiving care from 167 physicians (117 internists and 50 pediatricians) at 14 sites of a multi-specialty medical group in Massachusetts. We abstracted information for five measures of medical record documentation quality: smoking history, medications, drug allergies, compliance with screening guidelines, and immunizations. From other sources we determined physicians' specialty, gender, year of medical school graduation, and self-reported time spent teaching and in patient care. RESULTS:Among internists, unadjusted rates of documentation were 96.2% for immunizations, 91.6% for medications, 88% for compliance with screening guidelines, 61.6% for drug allergies, 37.8% for smoking history. Among pediatricians, rates were 100% for immunizations, 84.8% for medications, 90.8% for compliance with screening guidelines, 50.4% for drug allergies, and 20.4% for smoking history. While certain physician and patient characteristics correlated with some measures of documentation quality, documentation varied depending on the measure. For example, female internists were more likely than male internists to document smoking history (odds ratio [OR], 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 - 2.83) but were less likely to document drug allergies (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 - 0.75). CONCLUSIONS:Medical record documentation varied depending on the measure, with room for improvement in most domains. A variety of characteristics correlated with medical record documentation, but no pattern emerged. Further study could lead to targeted interventions to improve documentation.

Project description:National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines state that all healthcare organisations should put policies in place for medication reconciliation on admission. At Croydon University Hospital a medication history had previously been taken in Foundation Year 1 (FY1) preoperative clinics. However, when these clinics were deemed unnecessary, this opportunity for drug chart documentation was lost, along with an awareness of this responsibility among the FY1s. As a result patients were being admitted to wards without adequate drug chart documentation which resulted in a serious untoward incident occurring. This project aimed to increase awareness among FY1s of this responsibility and as a result increase drug chart documentation in postoperative elective surgical patients. The drug charts of 40 postoperative elective surgical patients admitted to all surgical wards were reviewed over a 2 week period. 12.5% (4/32) of patients taking regular medication had these correctly prescribed, with 'high risk medication omissions' found in 7.5% (3/40). Documentation of an allergy status was absent in 17.5% (7/40) of patients, including 5% (2/40) of whom had a known drug allergy. To create awareness of this responsibility, first, a presentation was given to the FY1s, second, posters to prompt action were placed on the elective surgical wards, and finally, the Director of Medical Education emailed the FY1s reiterating these facts. We then reviewed the drug charts of 45 elective postoperative patients over a 2 week period following these interventions. The results showed: correct prescription of regular medications improved to 48% (16/33); 'high risk medication omissions' reduced to 4% (2/45); documentation of allergy status on the drug charts increased to 87% (39/45); failure to document a known drug allergy on the drug chart fell to 2% (1/45); and patients with a 'high risk medication omission' or an undocumented known drug allergy decreased from 12.5% (5/40) to 7 % (3/45). This study has highlighted an area in which medication reconciliation and drug chart documentation were inadequate, and posed a risk to patient safety. Interventions designed to educate the FY1s and inform them of their responsibility improved standards in regular medication prescription and allergy documentation. However, leaving the onus with the FY1s was not enough to achieve adequate drug chart documentation. Further project cycles may therefore require the implementation of a step within the patient admission protocol in the preoperative ward that requires the nursing staff to contact the team's doctor when the patient arrives in hospital to ensure satisfactory drug chart documentation. In addition, collaboration with the pharmacists could also allow a 'best possible medication history' to be taken on the day of admission and thus reduce risk to patient safety.