Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions on medication communication challenges and solutions – text mining and manual content analysis - cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Communication challenges contribute to medication incidents in hospitals, but it is unclear how communication can be improved. The aims of this study were threefold: firstly, to describe the most common communication challenges related to medication incidents as perceived by healthcare professionals across specialized hospitals for adult patients; secondly, to consider suggestions from healthcare professionals with regard to improving medication communication; and thirdly, to explore how text mining compares to manual analysis when analyzing the free-text content of survey data.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. A digital survey was sent to professionals in two university hospital districts in Finland from November 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. In total, 223 professionals answered the open-ended questions; respondents were primarily registered nurses (77.7 %), physicians (8.6 %), and pharmacists (7.3 %). Text mining and manual inductive content analysis were employed for qualitative data analysis.

Results

The communication challenges were: (1) inconsistent documentation of prescribed and administered medication; (2) failure to document orally given prescriptions; (3) nurses’ unawareness of prescriptions (given outside of ward rounds) due to a lack of oral communication from the prescribers; (4) breaks in communication during care transitions to non-communicable software; (5) incomplete home medication reconciliation at admission and discharge; (6) medication lists not being updated during the inpatient period due to a lack of clarity regarding the responsible professional; and (7) work/environmental factors during medication dispensation and the receipt of verbal prescriptions. Suggestions for communication enhancements included: (1) structured digital prescriptions; (2) guidelines and training on how to use documentation systems; (3) timely documentation of verbal prescriptions and digital documentation of administered medication; (4) communicable software within and between organizations; (5) standardized responsibilities for updating inpatients’ medication lists; (6) nomination of a responsible person for home medication reconciliation at admission and discharge; and (7) distraction-free work environment for medication communication. Text mining and manual analysis extracted similar primary results.

Conclusions

Non-communicable software, non-standardized medication communication processes, lack of training on standardized documentation, and unclear responsibilities compromise medication safety in hospitals. Clarification is needed regarding interdisciplinary medication communication processes, techniques, and responsibilities. Text mining shows promise for free-text analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07227-0.

SUBMITTER: Syyrila T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8590289 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Some medications carry increased risk of patient harm when they are given in error. In incident reports, names of the medications that are involved in errors could be found written both in a specific medication field and/or within the free text description of the incident. Analysing only the names of the medications implicated in a specific unstructured medication field does not give information of the associated factors and risk areas, but when analysing unstructured free text descriptions, the information about the medication involved and associated risk factors may be buried within other non-relevant text. Thus, the aim of this study was to extract medication names most commonly used in free text descriptions of medication administration incident reports to identify terms most frequently associated with risk for each of these medications using text mining. METHOD:Free text descriptions of medication administration incidents (n = 72,390) reported in 2016 to the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales were analysed using SAS® Text miner. Analysis included text parsing and filtering free text to identify most commonly mentioned medications, followed by concept linking, and clustering to identify terms associated with commonly mentioned medications and the associated risk areas. RESULTS:The following risk areas related to medications were identified: 1. Allergic reactions to antibacterial drugs, 2. Intravenous administration of antibacterial drugs, 3. Fentanyl patches, 4. Checking and documenting of analgesic doses, 5. Checking doses of anticoagulants, 6. Insulin doses and blood glucose, 7. Administration of intravenous infusions. CONCLUSIONS:Interventions to increase medication administration safety should focus on checking patient allergies and medication doses, especially for intravenous and transdermal medications. High-risk medications include insulin, analgesics, antibacterial drugs, anticoagulants, and potassium chloride. Text mining may be useful for analysing large free text datasets and should be developed further.

Project description:AimsTo describe the characteristics of medication administration (MA) incidents reported to have occurred in patients' own homes (reporters' profession, incident types, contributing factors, patient consequence, and most common medications involved) and to identify the connection terms related to the most common contributing factors based on free text descriptions.DesignA retrospective study using descriptive statistical analysis and text mining.MethodsMedication administration incidents (N = 19,725) reported to have occurred in patients' homes between 2013-2018 in one district in Finland were analysed, describing the data by the reporters' occupation, incident type, contributing factors, and patient consequence. SAS® Text Miner was used to analyse free text descriptions of the MA incidents to understand contributing factors, using concept linking.ResultsMost MA incidents were reported by practical (lower level) nurses (77.8%, N = 15,349). The most common category of harm was 'mild harm' (40.1%, N = 7,915) and the most common error type was omissions of drug doses (47.4%, N = 9,343). The medications most commonly described were Marevan [warfarin] (N = 2,668), insulin (N = 811), Furesis [furosemide] (N = 590), antibiotic (N = 446), and Panadol [paracetamol] (N = 416). The contributing factors most commonly reported were 'communication and flow of information' (25.5%, N = 5,038), 'patient and relatives' (22.6%, N = 4,451), 'practices' (9.9%, N = 1,959), 'education and training' (4.8%, N = 949), and 'work environment and resources' (3.0%, N = 598).ConclusionThere is need for effective communication and clear responsibilities between home care patients and their relatives and health providers, about MA and its challenges in home environments. Knowledge and skills relating to safe MA are also essential.ImpactThese findings about MA incidents that have occurred in patients' homes and have been reported by home care professionals demonstrate the need for medication safety improvement in home care.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is still rampant all over the world. Until now, the COVID-19 vaccine is the most promising measure to subdue contagion and achieve herd immunity. However, public vaccination intention is suboptimal. A clear division lies between medical professionals and laypeople. While most professionals eagerly promote the vaccination campaign, some laypeople exude suspicion, hesitancy, and even opposition toward COVID-19 vaccines.ObjectiveThis study aims to employ a text mining approach to examine expression differences and thematic disparities between the professionals and laypeople within the COVID-19 vaccine context.MethodsWe collected 3196 answers under 65 filtered questions concerning the COVID-19 vaccine from the China-based question and answer forum Zhihu. The questions were classified into 5 categories depending on their contents and description: adverse reactions, vaccination, vaccine effectiveness, social implications of vaccine, and vaccine development. Respondents were also manually coded into two groups: professional and laypeople. Automated text analysis was performed to calculate fundamental expression characteristics of the 2 groups, including answer length, attitude distribution, and high-frequency words. Furthermore, structural topic modeling (STM), as a cutting-edge branch in the topic modeling family, was used to extract topics under each question category, and thematic disparities were evaluated between the 2 groups.ResultsLaypeople are more prevailing in the COVID-19 vaccine-related discussion. Regarding differences in expression characteristics, the professionals posted longer answers and showed a conservative stance toward vaccine effectiveness than did laypeople. Laypeople mentioned countries more frequently, while professionals were inclined to raise medical jargon. STM discloses prominent topics under each question category. Statistical analysis revealed that laypeople preferred the "safety of Chinese-made vaccine" topic and other vaccine-related issues in other countries. However, the professionals paid more attention to medical principles and professional standards underlying the COVID-19 vaccine. With respect to topics associated with the social implications of vaccines, the 2 groups showed no significant difference.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that laypeople and professionals share some common grounds but also hold divergent focuses toward the COVID-19 vaccine issue. These incongruities can be summarized as "qualitatively different" in perspective rather than "quantitatively different" in scientific knowledge. Among those questions closely associated with medical expertise, the "qualitatively different" characteristic is quite conspicuous. This study boosts the current understanding of how the public perceives the COVID-19 vaccine, in a more nuanced way. Web-based question and answer forums are a bonanza for examining perception discrepancies among various identities. STM further exhibits unique strengths over the traditional topic modeling method in statistically testing the topic preference of diverse groups. Public health practitioners should be keenly aware of the cognitive differences between professionals and laypeople, and pay special attention to the topics with significant inconsistency across groups to build consensus and promote vaccination effectively.