Dataset Information

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of User-Testing of Health Professionals' Guidelines to Reduce the Frequency of Intravenous Medicines Administration Errors by Nurses in the United Kingdom: A Probabilistic Model Based on Voriconazole Administration.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

In the UK, injectable medicines are often prepared and administered by nurses following the Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG). Our earlier study confirmed a higher frequency of correct administration with user-tested versus standard IMG guidelines. This current study aimed to model the cost-effectiveness of user-testing.

Methods

The costs and cost-effectiveness of user-testing were explored by modifying an existing probabilistic decision-analytic model. The adapted model considered administration of intravenous voriconazole to hospital inpatients by nurses. It included 11 error types, their probability of detection and level of harm. Model inputs (including costs) were derived from our previous study and other published data. Monte Carlo simulation using 20,000 samples (sufficient for convergence) was performed with a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the 121 NHS trusts and health boards that use the IMG. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for the risk of a medication error and other sources of uncertainty.

Results

The net monetary benefit at £20,000/quality-adjusted life year was £3,190,064 (95% credible interval (CrI): -346,709 to 8,480,665), favouring user-testing with a 96% chance of cost-effectiveness. Incremental cost-savings were £240,943 (95% CrI 43,527-491,576), also favouring user-tested guidelines with a 99% chance of cost-saving. The total user testing cost was £6317 (95% CrI 6012-6627). These findings were robust to assumptions about a range of input parameters, but greater uncertainty was seen with a lower medication error risk.

Conclusions

User-testing of injectable medicines guidelines is a low-cost intervention that is highly likely to be cost-effective, especially for high-risk medicines.

SUBMITTER: Jones MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8752547 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUser-testing and subsequent modification of clinical guidelines increases health professionals' information retrieval and comprehension. No study has investigated whether this results in safer care.ObjectiveTo compare the frequency of medication errors when administering an intravenous medicine using the current National Health Service Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG) versus an IMG version revised with user-testing.MethodSingle-blind, randomised parallel group in situ simulation. Participants were on-duty nurses/midwives who regularly prepared intravenous medicines. Using a training manikin in their clinical area, participants administered a voriconazole infusion, a high-risk medicine requiring several steps to prepare. They were randomised to use current IMG guidelines or IMG guidelines revised with user-testing. Direct observation was used to time the simulation and identify errors. Participant confidence was measured using a validated instrument. The primary outcome was the percentage of simulations with at least one moderate-severe IMG-related error, with error severity classified by an expert panel.ResultsIn total, 133 participants were randomised to current guidelines and 140 to user-tested guidelines. Fewer moderate-severe IMG-related errors occurred with the user-tested guidelines (n=68, 49%) compared with current guidelines (n=79, 59%), but this difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio: 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02). Significantly more simulations were completed without any IMG-related errors with the user-tested guidelines (n=67, 48%) compared with current guidelines (n=26, 20%) (risk ratio: 2.46; 95% CI 1.68 to 3.60). Median simulation completion time was 1.6 min (95% CI 0.2 to 3.0) less with the user-tested guidelines. Participants who used user-tested guidelines reported greater confidence.ConclusionUser-testing injectable medicines guidelines reduces the number of errors and the time taken to prepare and administer intravenous medicines, while increasing staff confidence.Trial registration numberresearchregistry5275.

Project description:BackgroundMedication administration errors (MAEs) are a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in acute care settings and can result in a prolonged hospital stay. The WHO estimated that medication errors cost up to $42 billion globally per a year. Therefore, MAEs was among the most common medical errors to occur in acute care settings. Studies of medication error usually focus on system factors, thus creating a gap between what researchers know about the causes of MAEs, and what frontline nurses actually do in the clinical setting. The purpose of this review is to fill a gap in the existing literature by focusing on the relationship between nurses' characteristics and MAEs.MethodsOnline databases were accessed, including CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar from 2007-2020 period. This review was guided by the methods described by Whittemore and Knafl. Studies that addressed the occurrence of medication errors based on RN demographics were included in this review. The included studies were reviewed and analyzed by the two authors.ResultsOf the 1141 publications retrieved, 19 studies met inclusion criteria. The result provided strong evidence that nurses' level of education, length of experience, and attendance at training courses, are directly associated with the occurrence of MAEs. There is weak evidence of MAEs being influenced by the age and gender of nurses. Other nurse characteristics, such as cognitive load, frustration with technology, negligence, lack of attentiveness, and nurse ethnicity, are not adequately examined across the reviewed studies necessitates further research.ConclusionFocusing on nurses' characteristics might facilitate other researchers to suggest appropriate interventions that may reduce the incidence of MAEs. Interventional studies may provide convincing evidence as to whether one variable has a causal effect on another variable, and control the influence of confounding variables to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Project description:BackgroundDespite extensive research carried out on medication administration errors (MAEs) in the domain of infusion therapy, there is limited knowledge on nurse's perceptions on the occurrence of MAEs during infusion therapy. Since nurses are responsible for medication preparation and administration in Dutch hospitals, it is vital to understand their perspectives on the risk factors for MAEs.AimThe purpose of this study is to investigate the perception of nurses, working in adult ICUs, on the occurrence of MAEs during continuous infusion therapies.MethodsA digital web-based survey was distributed among 373 ICU nurses working in Dutch hospitals. The survey investigated nurses' perceptions on the frequency, severity of consequences and preventability of MAEs, factors for the occurrence of MAEs, and infusion pump and smart infusion safety technology.ResultsA total of 300 nurses started to fill out the survey but only 91 of them (30.3%) fully completed it and were included in analyses. Medication-related factors and Care professional-related factors were perceived as the two most important risk categories for the occurrence of MAEs. Important risk factors contributing to the occurrence of MAEs included high patient-nurse ratio, problems in communication between caregivers, frequent staff changes and transfers of care, and no/incorrect dosage/concentration on labels. Drug library was reported as the most important infusion pump feature and both Bar Code Medication Administration (BCMA) and medical device connectivity as the two most important smart infusion safety technologies. Nurses perceived the majority of MAEs as preventable.ConclusionsBased on ICU nurses' perceptions, the present study suggests that strategies to reduce MAEs in these units should focus on, among other factors, the high patient-to-nurse ratio, problems in communication between nurses, frequent staff changes and transfers of care, and no/incorrect dosage/concentration on drug labels.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study was conducted to assess the magnitude and contributing factors of medication administration errors among nurses in federal hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.DesignA hospital-based cross-sectional study design was employed. Data on medication administration and associated factors were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was done to identify factors associated with medication administration errors on the basis of adjusted OR with 95% CI and a p value less than 0.05.SettingThis study was conducted in federal hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ParticipantsFour hundred and twenty-three randomly selected nurses participated.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome variable is medication administration error, which was ascertained using the following errors: wrong medication, wrong dose, wrong time, wrong route, wrong patient, wrong drug preparation, wrong advice, wrong assessment and wrong documentations.ResultsA total of 59.9% (95% CI: 55.0% to 64.8%) of the nurses in the federal hospitals in Addis Ababa committed one or more medication administration errors in the last 12 months prior to the survey. The most commonly reported medication errors were wrong time (56.8%), wrong documentation (33.3%), wrong advice (27.8%) and wrong dose (20.1%). Medication administration errors among nurses were significantly associated with short work experience (adjusted OR (AOR): 6.48, 95% CI: 1.32 to 31.78), night shift work (AOR: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.82 to 13.78), absence of on-the-job training (AOR: 3.16, 95% CI: 1.67 to 6.00), unavailability of medication administration guidelines in wards (AOR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.06 to 4.06) and interruptions during medication administration (AOR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.30 to 4.49).ConclusionIt was found that a high proportion of nurses in federal hospitals committed medication administration errors. Short work experience, night shift work, absence of on-the-job training, unavailability of medication administration guidelines and interruptions during medication administration explained the high magnitude of medication administration errors.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based decision making relies on easy access to trustworthy research results. The Cochrane Library is a key source of evidence about the effect of interventions and aims to "promote the accessibility of systematic reviews to anyone wanting to make a decision about health care". We explored how health professionals found, used and experienced The Library, looking at facets of user experience including findability, usability, usefulness, credibility, desirability and value.MethodsWe carried out 32 one-hour usability tests on participants from Norway and the UK. Participants both browsed freely and attempted to perform individually tailored tasks while "thinking aloud". Sessions were recorded and viewed in real time by researchers. Transcriptions and videos were reviewed by one researcher and one designer. Findings reported here reflect issues receiving a high degree of saturation and that we judge to be critical to the user experience of evidence-based web sites, based on principles for usability heuristics, web guidelines and evidence-based practice.ResultsParticipants had much difficulty locating both the site and its contents. Non-native English speakers were at an extra disadvantage when retrieving relevant documents despite high levels of English-language skills. Many participants displayed feelings of ineptitude, alienation and frustration. Some made serious mistakes in correctly distinguishing between different information types, for instance reviews, review protocols, and individual studies. Although most expressed a high regard for the site's credibility, some later displayed a mistrust of the independence of the information. Others were overconfident, thinking everything on The Cochrane Library site shared the same level of quality approval.ConclusionParadoxically, The Cochrane Library, established to support easy access to research evidence, has its own problems of accessibility. Health professionals' experiences of this and other evidence-based online resources can be improved by applying existing principles for web usability, prioritizing the development of simple search functionality, emitting "researcher" jargon, consistent marking of site ownership, and clear signposting of different document types and different content quality.