Dataset Information

Evaluating users' experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

User interface (UI) design features such as screen layout, density of information, and use of colour may affect the usability of electronic prescribing (EP) systems, with usability problems previously associated with medication errors. To identify how to improve existing systems, our aim was to explore prescribers' perspectives of UI features of a commercially available EP system, and how these may affect patient safety.

Methods

Two studies were conducted, each including ten participants prescribing a penicillin for a test patient with a penicillin allergy. In study 1, eye-gaze tracking was used as a means to explore visual attention and behaviour during prescribing, followed by a self-reported EP system usability scale. In study 2, a think-aloud method and semi-structured interview were applied to explore participants' thoughts and views on prescribing, with a focus on UI design and patient safety.

Results

Study 1 showed high visual attention toward information on allergies and patient information, allergy pop-up alerts, and medication order review and confirmation, with less visual attention on adding medication. The system's usability was rated 'below average'. In study 2, participants highlighted EP design features and workflow, including screen layout and information overload as being important for patient safety, benefits of EP systems such as keeping a record of relevant information, and suggestions for improvement in relation to system design (colour, fonts, customization) and patient interaction.

Conclusions

Specific UI design factors were identified that may improve the usability and/or safety of EP systems. It is suggested that eye-gaze tracking and think-aloud methods are used in future experimental research in this area. Limitations include the small sample size; further work should include similar studies on other EP systems.

SUBMITTER: Aufegger L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7126479 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating users' experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study.

Aufegger Lisa L Serou Naresh N Chen Shiping S Franklin Bryony Dean BD

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20200403 1

<h4>Background</h4>User interface (UI) design features such as screen layout, density of information, and use of colour may affect the usability of electronic prescribing (EP) systems, with usability problems previously associated with medication errors. To identify how to improve existing systems, our aim was to explore prescribers' perspectives of UI features of a commercially available EP system, and how these may affect patient safety.<h4>Methods</h4>Two studies were conducted, each includin ...[more]

PMID: 32245467

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWearable devices permit the continuous, unobtrusive collection of data from children in their natural environments and can transform our understanding of child development. Although the use of wearable devices has begun to emerge in research involving children, few studies have considered families' experiences and perspectives of participating in research of this kind.ObjectiveThrough a mixed methods approach, we assessed parents' and children's experiences of using a new wearable device in the home environment. The wearable device was designed specifically for use with infants and young children, and it integrates audio, electrocardiogram, and motion sensors.MethodsIn study 1, semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 42 parents of children aged 1 month to 9.5 years who completed 2 day-long recordings using the device, which the children wore on a specially designed shirt. In study 2, a total of 110 parents of children aged 2 months to 5.5 years responded to a questionnaire assessing their experience of completing 3 day-long device recordings in the home. Guided by the Digital Health Checklist, we assessed parental responses from both studies in relation to the following three key domains: (1) access and usability, (2) privacy, and (3) risks and benefits.ResultsIn study 1, most parents viewed the device as easy to use and safe and remote visits as convenient. Parents' views on privacy related to the audio recordings were more varied. The use of machine learning algorithms (vs human annotators) in the analysis of the audio data, the ability to stop recordings at any time, and the view that the recordings reflected ordinary family life were some reasons cited by parents who expressed minimal, if any, privacy concerns. Varied risks and benefits were also reported, including perceived child comfort or discomfort, the need to adjust routines to accommodate the study, the understanding gained from the study procedures, and the parent's and child's enjoyment of study participation. In study 2, parents' ratings on 5 close-ended items yielded a similar pattern of findings. Compared with a "neutral" rating, parents were significantly more likely to agree that (1) device instructions were helpful and clear (t109=-45.98; P<.001), (2) they felt comfortable putting the device on their child (t109=-22.22; P<.001), and (3) they felt their child was safe while wearing the device (t109=-34.48; P<.001). They were also less likely to worry about the audio recordings gathered by the device (t108=6.14; P<.001), whereas parents' rating of the burden of the study procedures did not differ significantly from a "neutral" rating (t109=-0.16; P=.87).ConclusionsOn the basis of parents' feedback, several concrete changes can be implemented to improve this new wearable platform and, ultimately, parents' and children's experiences of using child wearable devices in the home setting.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth use has increased considerably in the last years and evidence suggests an overall positive sentiment towards telehealth. Twitter has a wide userbase and can enrich our understanding of telehealth use by users expressing their personal opinions in an unprompted way. This study aimed to explore Twitter users' experiences, perceptions and expectations about telehealth over the last 5 years.MethodsMixed-methods study with sequential complementary quantitative and qualitative phases was used for analysis stages comprising (1) a quantitative semiautomated analysis and (2) a qualitative research-led thematic analysis. A machine learning model was used to establish the data set with relevant English language tweets from 1 September 2017 to 1 September 2022 relating to telehealth using predefined search words. Results were integrated at the end.ResultsFrom the initial 237,671 downloaded tweets, 6469 had a relevancy score above 0.8 and were input into Leximancer and 595 were manually analysed. Experiences, perceptions and expectations were categorised into three domains: experience with telehealth consultation, telehealth changes over time and the purpose of the appointment. The most tweeted experience was expectations for telehealth consultation in comparison to in-person consultations. Users mostly mentioned the hope that waiting times for the consultations to start to be less than in-person, more telehealth appointments to be available and telehealth to be cheaper. Perceptions around the use of telehealth in relation to healthcare delivery changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic were also expressed. General practitioners were mentioned six times more than other healthcare professionals.Conclusion/implicationsThis study found that Twitter users expect telehealth services to be better, more affordable and more available than in-person consultations. Users acknowledged the convenience of not having to travel for appointments and the challenges to adapt to telehealth.Patient or public contributionAn open data set with 237,671 tweets expressing users' opinions in an unprompted way was used as a source for telehealth service users, caregivers and members of the public experiences, perceptions and expectations of telehealth.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite a large number of clinical trials aiming at evaluating the digital self-management of chronic diseases, there is little discussion about users' experiences with digital approaches. However, a good user experience is a critical factor for technology adoption. Understanding users' experiences can inform the design of approaches toward increased motivation for digital self-management. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the self-management of cystic fibrosis (CF) with a focus on gastrointestinal concerns and the care of young patients. Following a user-centered design approach, we developed a self-management app for patients and parents and a web tool for health care professionals (HCPs). To evaluate the proposed solutions, a 6-month clinical trial was conducted in 6 European CF competence centers. This paper analyzes the user acceptance of the technology and the benefits and disadvantages perceived by the trial participants. METHODS:A mixed methods approach was applied. Data were collected through 41 semistructured qualitative interviews of patients, parents, and HCPs involved in the clinical trial. In addition, data were collected through questionnaires embedded in the self-management app. RESULTS:Support for enzyme dose calculation and nutrition management was found to be particularly useful. Patients and parents rapidly strengthened their knowledge about the treatment and increased their self-efficacy. Reported benefits include reduced occurrence of symptoms and enhanced quality of life. Patients and parents had different skills, requiring follow-up by HCPs in an introductory phase. HCPs valued obtaining precise information about the patients, allowing for more personalized advice. However, the tight follow-up of several patients led to an increased workload. Over time, as patient self-efficacy increased, patient motivation for using the app decreased and the quality of the reported data was reduced. CONCLUSIONS:Self-management enfolds a collaboration between patients and HCPs. To be successful, a self-management approach should be accepted by both parties. Through understanding behaviors and experiences, this study defines recommendations for a complex case-the demanding treatment of CF. We identify target patient groups and situations for which the app is most beneficial and suggest focusing on these rather than motivating for regular app usage over a long time. We also advise the personalized supervision of patients during the introduction of the approach. Finally, we propose to develop guidance for HCPs to facilitate changes in practice. As personalization and technology literacy are factors found to influence the acceptance of digital self-management of other chronic diseases, it is relevant to consider the proposed recommendations beyond the case of CF.

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing adoption of hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePA) systems has driven a wealth of research around the impact on patient safety. Yet relatively little research has sought to understand the effects on staff, particularly pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the effects of ePA on pharmacists' activities, including interactions with patients and health professionals, and their perceptions of medication safety risks.MethodsA mixed methods study comprising quantitative direct observations of ward pharmacists before and after implementation of ePA in an English hospital, and semi-structured interviews post-ePA. Quantitative data comprised multi-dimensional work activity sampling to establish the proportion of time ward pharmacists spent on different tasks, with whom and where. These data were extrapolated to estimate task duration. Qualitative interviews with pharmacists explored perceived impact on (i) ward activities, (ii) interactions with patients and different health professionals, (iii) locations where tasks were carried out, and (iv) medication errors.ResultsObservations totalled 116 h and 50 min. Task duration analysis suggested screening inpatient medication increased by 16 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.002), and searching for paper drug charts or computer decreased by 2 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.001). Pharmacists mainly worked alone (58% of time pre- and 65% post-ePA, p = 0.17), with patient interactions reducing from 5 to 2% of time (p = 0.03). Seven main themes were identified from the interviews, underpinned by a core explanatory concept around the enhanced and shifting role of the ward pharmacist post-ePA. Pharmacists perceived there to be a number of valuable safety features with ePA. However, paradoxically, some of these may have also inadvertently contributed to medication errors.ConclusionThis study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into the effects of implementing ePA on ward pharmacists' activities. Some tasks took longer while others reduced, and pharmacists may spend less time with patients with ePA. Pharmacists valued a number of safety features associated with ePA but also perceived an overall increase in medication risk. Pharmacy staff demonstrated a degree of resilience to ensure 'business as usual' by enhancing and adapting their role.

Project description:Objectives(A) To measure the extent to which different candidate outcome measures identified high-risk prescribing that is potentially changeable by the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention.(B) To explore the value of reviewing identified high-risk prescribing to clinicians.(C) To optimise the components of the DQIP intervention.DesignMixed method study.SettingGeneral practices in two Scottish Health boards.Participants4 purposively sampled general practices of varying size and socioeconomic deprivation.Outcome measuresPrescribing measures targeting (1) high-risk use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelets; (2) 'Asthma control' and (3) 'Antithrombotics in atrial fibrillation (AF)'.InterventionThe prescribing measures were used to identify patients for review by general practices. The ability of the measures to identify potentially changeable high-risk prescribing was measured as the proportion of patients reviewed where practices identified a need for action. Field notes were recorded from meetings between researchers and staff and key staff participated in semistructured interviews exploring their experience of the piloted intervention processes.ResultsPractices identified a need for action in 68%, 25% and 18% of patients reviewed for prescribing measures (1), (2) and (3), respectively. General practitioners valued being prompted to review patients, and perceived that (1) 'NSAID and antiplatelet' and (2) 'antithrombotics in AF' were the most important to act on. Barriers to initial and ongoing engagement and to sustaining improvements in prescribing were identified.Conclusions'NSAIDs and antiplatelets' measures were selected as the most suitable outcome measures for the DQIP trial, based on evidence of this prescribing being more easily changeable. In response to the barriers identified, the intervention was designed to include a financial incentive, additional ongoing feedback on progress and reprompting review of patients, whose high-risk prescribing was restarted after a decision to stop.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502.

Project description:Although electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) holds promise for preventing prescription errors in the ambulatory setting, research on its effectiveness is inconclusive.To assess the impact of a stand-alone e-prescribing system on the rates and types of ambulatory prescribing errors.Prospective, non-randomized study using pre-post design of 15 providers who adopted e-prescribing with concurrent controls of 15 paper-based providers from September 2005 through June 2007.Use of a commercial, stand-alone e-prescribing system with clinical decision support including dosing recommendations and checks for drug-allergy interactions, drug-drug interactions, and duplicate therapies.Prescribing errors were identified by a standardized prescription and chart review.We analyzed 3684 paper-based prescriptions at baseline and 3848 paper-based and electronic prescriptions at one year of follow-up. For e-prescribing adopters, error rates decreased nearly sevenfold, from 42.5 per 100 prescriptions (95% confidence interval (CI), 36.7-49.3) at baseline to 6.6 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 5.1-8.3) one year after adoption (p < 0.001). For non-adopters, error rates remained high at 37.3 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.6-50.2) at baseline and 38.4 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI, 27.4-53.9) at one year (p = 0.54). At one year, the error rate for e-prescribing adopters was significantly lower than for non-adopters (p < 0.001). Illegibility errors were very high at baseline and were completely eliminated by e-prescribing (87.6 per 100 prescriptions at baseline for e-prescribing adopters, 0 at one year).Prescribing errors may occur much more frequently in community-based practices than previously reported. Our preliminary findings suggest that stand-alone e-prescribing with clinical decision support may significantly improve ambulatory medication safety.ClinicalTrials.gov, Taconic Health Information Network and Community (THINC), NCT00225563, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225563?term=Kaushal&rank=6 .

Project description:Healthcare providers previously using older electronic health records (EHRs) with electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) are transitioning to newer systems to be eligible for federal meaningful use incentives. Little is known about the safety effects of transitioning between systems.To assess the effect of transitioning between EHR systems on rates and types of prescribing errors, as well as provider perceptions about the effect on prescribing safety.Prospective, case study of 17 physicians at an academic-affiliated ambulatory clinic from February 2008 through August 2009. All physicians transitioned from an older EHR with minimal clinical decision support (CDS) for e-prescribing to a newer EHR with more robust CDS.Prescribing errors were identified by standardized prescription and chart review. A novel survey instrument was administered to evaluate provider perceptions about prescribing safety.We analyzed 1298 prescriptions at baseline, 1331 prescriptions 12 weeks post-implementation, and 1303 prescriptions one year post-implementation. Overall prescribing error rates were highest at baseline (35.7 per 100 prescriptions, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.2-54.8) and lowest one year post-implementation (12.2 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 8.6-17.4) (p?<?0.001). Improvement in prescribing safety was mainly a result of reducing inappropriate abbreviation errors. However, rates for non-abbreviation prescribing errors were significantly higher at 12 weeks post-implementation than at baseline (17.7 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 9.5-33.0 versus 8.5 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 4.6-15.9) (p <0.001) and no different at baseline than one year (10.2 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 6.2-18.6) (p?=?0.337). Survey results complemented quantitative findings.Results from this case study suggest that transitioning between systems, even to those with more robust CDS, may pose important safety threats. Recognizing the challenges associated with transitions and refining CDS within systems may help maximize safety benefits.

Dataset Information

Evaluating users' experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluating users' experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets