Automation bias in electronic prescribing

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) in e-prescribing can improve safety by alerting potential errors, but introduces new sources of risk. Automation bias (AB) occurs when users over-rely on CDS, reducing vigilance in information seeking and processing. Evidence of AB has been found in other clinical tasks, but has not yet been tested with e-prescribing. This study tests for the presence of AB in e-prescribing and the impact of task complexity and interruptions on AB. Methods: One hundred and twenty students in the final two years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for nine clinical scenarios using a simulated e-prescribing system. Quality of CDS (correct, incorrect and no CDS) and task complexity (low, low + interruption and high) were varied between conditions. Omission errors (failure to detect prescribing errors) and commission errors (acceptance of false positive alerts) were measured. Results: Compared to scenarios with no CDS, correct CDS reduced omission errors by 38.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 46.6% (p < .0001, n = 70), and 39.2% (p < .0001, n = 120) for low, low + interrupt and high complexity scenarios respectively. Incorrect CDS increased omission errors by 33.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 24.5% (p < .009, n = 82), and 26.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Participants made commission errors, 65.8% (p < .0001, n = 120), 53.5% (p < .0001, n = 82), and 51.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Task complexity and interruptions had no impact on AB. Conclusions: This study found evidence of AB omission and commission errors in e-prescribing. Verification of CDS alerts is key to avoiding AB errors. However, interventions focused on this have had limited success to date. Clinicians should remain vigilant to the risks of CDS failures and verify CDS

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: A direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

Background Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. Objectives To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. Methods Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. Results For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). Conclusions Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings

Trends of public health research output from India during 2001-2008

BACKGROUND: An understanding of how public health research output from India is changing in relation to the disease burden and public health priorities is required in order to inform relevant research development. We therefore studied the trends in the public health research output from India during 2001-2008 that was readily available in the public domain. METHODS: The scope and type of the published research from India in 2007 that was included in the PubMed database was assessed and compared with a previous similar assessment for 2002. Papers were classified based on the review of abstracts and original public health research papers were assessed in detail. Impact factors for the journals were used to compute quality-adjusted research output. The websites of governmental organizations, academic and research institutions and international organizations were searched in order to identify and review reports on original public health research produced in India from 2001 to 2008. The reports were classified based on the topics covered and quality and their trends over time were assessed. RESULTS: The number of original health research papers from India in PubMed doubled from 4494 in 2002 to 9066 in 2007. This included a 3.1-fold increase in public health research papers, but these comprised only 5% of the total papers in 2007. Within public health, the increase was lowest for the health system and policy category. Several major causes of disease burden in India continued to be underrepresented in the quality-adjusted public health research output in 2007. The number of papers evaluating population health interventions increased from 2002 to 2007, but there were none on the leading non-communicable causes of disease burden or on road traffic injuries. The number of identified original public health research reports increased by 64.7% from 204 in 2001-2004 to 336 in 2005-2008. The proportion of reports on reproductive and child health was very high but decreased slightly from 38.7% of the total in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008 (P = 0.09); those on the leading chronic non-communicable conditions and injuries increased from 6.4% to 13.4% (P = 0.01) but this was still much lower than their contribution to the disease burden. Health system/policy issues were the topic in 27.4% reports but health information issues were covered in a miniscule 0.6% reports. The proportion of reports that were evaluations increased slightly from 26% in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008, with this proportion being higher among the reports commissioned by international organizations (P < 0.001). The proportion of reports commissioned by Indian governmental organizations alone, or in collaboration with international organizations, doubled from 2001-2004 to 2005-2008 (P < 0.001). Only 25% of the total 540 reports had a quality score of adequate or better. The quality of reports produced by collaborations between Indian and international organizations was higher than those produced by Indian or international organizations alone (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This is the first analysis from India that includes research reports in addition to published papers. It provides the most up-to-date understanding of public health research output from India. The increase in available public health research output and the increase in commissioning of this research by Indian governmental organizations are encouraging. However, the distribution of research topics and the quality of research reports continue to be unsatisfactory. It is necessary for health policy to address these continuing deficits in public health research in order to reduce the very large disease burden in India.13 page(s

Co-designing a dashboard of predictive analytics and decision support to drive care quality and client outcomes in aged care: a mixed-method study protocol

IntroductionThere is a clear need for improved care quality and quality monitoring in aged care. Aged care providers collect an abundance of data, yet rarely are these data integrated and transformed in real-time into actionable information to support evidence-based care, nor are they shared with older people and informal caregivers. This protocol describes the co-design and testing of a dashboard in residential aged care facilities (nursing or care homes) and community-based aged care settings (formal care provided at home or in the community). The dashboard will comprise integrated data to provide an 'at-a-glance' overview of aged care clients, indicators to identify clients at risk of fall-related hospitalisations and poor quality of life, and evidence-based decision support to minimise these risks. Longer term plans for dashboard implementation and evaluation are also outlined.MethodsThis mixed-method study will involve (1) co-designing dashboard features with aged care staff, clients, informal caregivers and general practitioners (GPs), (2) integrating aged care data silos and developing risk models, and (3) testing dashboard prototypes with users. The dashboard features will be informed by direct observations of routine work, interviews, focus groups and co-design groups with users, and a community forum. Multivariable discrete time survival models will be used to develop risk indicators, using predictors from linked historical aged care and hospital data. Dashboard prototype testing will comprise interviews, focus groups and walk-through scenarios using a think-aloud approach with staff members, clients and informal caregivers, and a GP workshop.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethical approval from the New South Wales (NSW) Population & Health Services Research Ethics Committee and Macquarie University's Human Research Ethics Committee. The research findings will be presented to the aged care provider who will share results with staff members, clients, residents and informal caregivers. Findings will be disseminated as peer-reviewed journal articles, policy briefs and conference presentations

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

Background: Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce. Objectives: To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence. Methods: Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed—one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients’ medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence. Results: For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65–1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65–1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54–0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57–0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations). Conclusions: Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings

Leveraging new information technology to monitor medicine use in 71 residential aged care facilities: Variation in polypharmacy and antipsychotic use

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. Objective: The aim of this study was to use routinely collected electronic medicines administration (eMAR) data in residential aged care (RAC) to investigate the quality use of medicines. Design: A cross-sectional analysis of eMAR data. Setting: 71 RAC facilities in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Participants: Permanent residents living in a participating facility on 1 October 2015. Intervention: None. Main Outcome Measures: Variation in polypharmacy (?5 medications), hyper-polypharmacy (?10 medications) and antipsychotic use across facilities was examined using funnel plot analysis. Results: The study dataset included 4775 long-term residents. The mean resident age was 85.3 years and 70.6% of residents were female. The median facility size was 60 residents and 74.3% were in metropolitan locations. 84.3% of residents had polypharmacy, 41.2% hyper-polypharmacy and 21.0% were using an antipsychotic. The extent of polypharmacy (69.75-100% of residents), hyper-polypharmacy (38.81-76.19%) and use of antipsychotic medicines (0-75.6%) varied considerably across the 71 facilities. Conclusions: Using eMAR data we found substantial variation in polypharmacy, hyperpolypharmacy and antipsychotic medicine use across 71 RAC facilities. Further investigation into the policies and practices of facilities performing above or below expected levels is warranted to understand variation and drive quality improvement

The potential impact of an electronic medication management system on safety-critical prescribing errors in an emergency department

© 2019 The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia Background: Medication errors in hospitals are common. Although electronic medication management systems (eMMS) have the potential to reduce errors during inpatient care, little is known about their effect in emergency departments (ED). Aim: The aims of this study were to report on the types of prescribing errors in an ED prior to implementation of an eMMS, to assess the risk the errors pose to patient safety and to evaluate whether safety-critical errors were potentially preventable with a newly implemented eMMS. Methods: Medication orders on paper charts were assessed for prescribing errors by a clinical hospital pharmacist. Error severity was rated using a five-point scale. Errors of moderate or higher severity, and all errors involving defined high-risk medicines were considered safety-critical errors. The potential for safety-critical errors to be prevented by the eMMS was rated (likely, possibly or unlikely). Results: Across 239 medication orders, 208 errors (27 clinical, 181 legal or procedural) were identified. The overall prescribing error rate was 0.87 errors/order. There were 67 safety-critical errors (53 legal or procedural, 14 clinical). Overall, 82.1% of errors were likely preventable by eMMS. However, of the clinical safety-critical errors, only 2 (14.3%) were considered likely preventable. Conclusion: Although eMMS has the capacity to prevent a high proportion of safety-critical legal or procedural errors in the ED, clinical prescribing errors in this category were unlikely to be prevented by using eMMS. Further investigation of these more severe error types could guide the design of eMMS decision support to improve system effectiveness

The General Practice and Residential Aged Care Facility Concordance of Medication (GRACEMED) study.

BACKGROUND: The lack of interoperable IT systems between residential aged care facilities (RACF) and general practitioners (GP) in primary care settings in Australia introduces the potential for medication discrepancies and other medication errors. The aim of the GRACEMED study is to determine the extent and potential severity of medication discrepancies between general practice and RACFs, and identify factors associated with medication discrepancies. METHODS: A cross sectional study of medication discrepancies between RACF medication orders and GP medication lists was conducted in the Sydney North Health Network, Australia. A random sample of RACF residents was included from practice lists provided by the general practices. RACF medication orders and GP medication lists for the included residents were compared, and medication discrepancies between the two sources were identified and characterised in terms of discrepancy type, potential for harm and associated factors. RESULTS: 31 GPs and 203 residents were included in the study. A total of 1777 discrepancies were identified giving an overall discrepancy rate of 72.6 discrepancies for every 100 medications. Omissions were the most common discrepancy type (35.2%,) followed by dose discrepancies (34.4%) and additions (30.4%). 48.5% of residents had a discrepancy with the potential to result in moderate harm and 9.8% had a discrepancy with the potential for severe harm. Number of medications prescribed was the only factor associated with medication discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Increased use of systems that allow information sharing and improved interoperability of clinical information is urgently needed to address medication safety issues experienced by RACF residents