Nurses\u27 behaviors and visual scanning patterns may reduce patient identification errors

Patient identification (ID) errors occurring during the medication administration process can be fatal. The aim of this study is to determine whether differences in nurses\u27 behaviors and visual scanning patterns during the medication administration process influence their capacities to identify patient ID errors. Nurse participants (n = 20) administered medications to 3 patients in a simulated clinical setting, with 1 patient having an embedded ID error. Error-identifying nurses tended to complete more process steps in a similar amount of time than non-error-identifying nurses and tended to scan information across artifacts (e.g., ID band, patient chart, medication label) rather than fixating on several pieces of information on a single artifact before fixating on another artifact. Non-error-indentifying nurses tended to increase their durations of off-topic conversations-a type of process interruption-over the course of the trials; the difference between groups was significant in the trial with the embedded ID error. Error-identifying nurses tended to have their most fixations in a row on the patient\u27s chart, whereas non-error-identifying nurses did not tend to have a single artifact on which they consistently fixated. Finally, error-identifying nurses tended to have predictable eye fixation sequences across artifacts, whereas non-error-identifying nurses tended to have seemingly random eye fixation sequences. This finding has implications for nurse training and the design of tools and technologies that support nurses as they complete the medication administration process. (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved

Designing property specifications to improve the safety of the blood transfusion process

Computer scientists use a number of well-established techniques that have the potential to improve the safety of patient care processes. One is the formal definition of a process; the other is the formal definition of the properties of a process. Even highly regulated processes, such as laboratory specimen acquisition and transfusion therapy, use guidelines that may be vague, misunderstood, and hence erratically implemented. Examining processes in a systematic way has led us to appreciate the potential variability in routine health care practice and the impact of this variability on patient safety in the clinical setting. The purpose of this article is to discuss the use of innovative computer science techniques as a means of formally defining and specifying certain desirable goals of common, high-risk, patient care processes. Our focus is on describing the specification of process properties, that is, the high-level goals of a process that ultimately dictate why a process should be performed in a given manner

Re-examining the requirements for verification of patient identifiers during medication administration: No wonder it is error-prone

Patient identification errors are one of the major causes of medication errors. Most medication error studies to date have focused on reporting patient misidentification statistics from case studies, on classifying types of patient identification errors, or on evaluating the impact of technology on the patient identification process, but few have proposed specific strategies or guidelines to decrease patient identification errors. Our study makes three key contributions to the patient identification literature. To better understand the verification of patient identifiers (VPI) process, we first formalize the requirements for this process based on the Joint Commission\u27s national patient safety guidelines. Second, we show the implications of these requirements by applying them to artifacts typically used in medication administration (e.g., patient\u27s statements about their identity, patient\u27s identification band, medication label, and medication order). Third, we evaluate whether nurses comply with these requirements when administering medications using data from clinical simulations. We found that nurses must choose from a considerable number of alternatives to fulfill the Joint Commission guidelines. Despite the number of available alternatives, a small percentage of nurses complied with the requirements for VPI, whether doing so manually or using barcode verification technology. Our findings suggest further study is needed to determine what strategies might improve compliance