1,372 research outputs found
A comparison of two methods of assessing the potential clinical importance of medication errors
BACKGROUND: A wide range of methods have been used to assess the potential clinical importance of medication errors, but it is neither clear which should be used, nor how they compare. In this paper, we compare two methods of assessment, using a dataset of errors identified in the administration of intravenous infusions in English hospitals, to inform future comparisons between studies. METHODS: We assessed each of 155 errors identified in a study of intravenous infusion administration using two commonly used methods: an adapted form of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) method (an ordinal scale scored by local clinicians) and the Dean and Barber method (an interval scale ranging from 0 to 10 scored by a group of experts). We compared the two sets of scores using a scatter plot and calculated Spearman’s correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Using the NCC MERP method, 137 (88%) errors were rated C (‘an error occurred but was unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient’), 17 (11%) rated D (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have required increased monitoring’) and 1 (1%) rated E (‘an error occurred that would be likely to have caused temporary harm’). Errors ranged from 0 to 4.75 on the Dean and Barber scale with a mean of 1.7; 138 (89%) of errors were considered minor (scores of less than 3) and 17 (11%) as moderate (scores 3–7). Scores from the two methods were significantly but weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.36, p = < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Scores from the adapted NCC MERP and Dean and Barber methods are only weakly correlated in the assessment of medication administration errors. In the absence of a uniformly agreed standard method for assessing errors’ clinical importance, researchers should be aware that comparisons between studies are likely to have limitations
Ongoing under-reporting of clinically relevant safety data in phase II studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors
status: publishe
Characteristics of individuals presenting to treatment for primary alcohol problems versus other drug problems in the Australian patient pathways study
Background: People seeking treatment for substance use disorders often have additional health and social issues.
Although individuals presenting with alcohol as the primary drug of concern (PDOC) account for nearly half of all
treatment episodes to the Australian alcohol and other drug (AOD) service system, previous treatment cohort
studies have focused only on the profile of Australian heroin or methamphetamine users. While studies overseas
indicate that clients seeking treatment primarily for their drinking are less likely to experience social and economic
marginalisation than those seeking treatment primarily for illicit or pharmaceutical drug use, very little research has
directly compared individuals presenting with alcohol as the PDOC to those primarily presenting with other drugs
as their PDOC.
Methods: Seven hundred and ninety-six participants were recruited at entry to specialist AOD treatment in Victoria
and Western Australia, and completed measures of demographic and social factors, substance use, quality of life,
service use, and criminal justice involvement. We compared those with alcohol as their PDOC to those with other
drugs as their PDOC using Pearson chi-square and Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results: Rates of social disadvantage, poor quality of life, high severity of substance dependence, and past-year
AOD, mental health, acute health, and social service use were high in all groups. However, participants with alcohol as
the PDOC were older; more likely to have an educational qualification; less likely to report criminal justice involvement,
housing/homelessness service use, tobacco smoking, or problems with multiple substances; and reported better
environmental quality of life; but were more likely to have used ambulance services, than those with other drugs
as their PDOC.
Conclusions: While those seeking treatment primarily for alcohol problems appear less likely to suffer some forms of
social and economic disadvantage or to use multiple substances than those with a primary drug problem, they
experience similarly high levels of substance dependence severity and mental health and AOD service use. These
findings reinforce the need for AOD services to integrate or coordinate care with programs that address the many
complexities clients frequently present with, while also acknowledging differences between those seeking treatment
for alcohol versus other drug problems
Medicines management at home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring the UK patient/carer perspective
OBJECTIVES: To explore home medicine practices and safety for people shielding and/or over the age of 70 during the COVID-19 pandemic and to create guidance, from the patient/carer perspective, for enabling safe medicine practices for this population. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 50 UK participants who were shielding and/or over the age of 70 and who used medicines for a long-term condition, using telephone or video conferencing. Participants were recruited through personal/professional networks and through patient/carer organisations. Participants were asked about their experiences of managing medicines during the pandemic and how this differed from previous practices. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Patients' and their families' experiences of managing medicines safely during the pandemic varied greatly. Analysis suggests that this was based on the patient's own agency, the functioning of their medicines system pre-pandemic and their relationships with family, friends, community networks and pharmacy staff. Medicine safety issues reported included omitted doses and less-effective formulations being used. Participants also described experiencing high levels of anxiety related to obtaining medicines, monitoring medicines and feeling at risk of contracting COVID-19 while accessing healthcare services for medicine-related issues. Effects of the pandemic on medicines adherence were reported to be positive by some and negative by others. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy staff have a key role to play by establishing good relationships with patients and their families, working with prescribers to ensure medicines systems are as joined up as possible, and signposting to community networks that can help with medicines collection
Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems
In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the
conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with
empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our
review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities,
referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the
indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated
with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their
unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for
both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive
evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M.
(2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some
corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality
Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations. A case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000-2009.
This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature
Recommended from our members
Care homes’ use of medicines study: prevalence, causes and potential harm of medication errors in care homes for older people
Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes.
Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement.
Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems.
Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned
- …