Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness, and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability.

OBJECTIVE: Two tools are currently available in the literature to evaluate the usability of medication alert systems, the instrument for evaluating human factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA) and the tool for evaluating medication alerting systems (TEMAS). This study aimed to compare their convergent validity, perceived usability, usefulness, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as users' preferences. METHOD: To evaluate convergent validity, two experts mapped TEMAS' items against I-MeDeSA's items with respect to the usability dimensions they target. To assess perceived usability, usefulness, strengths, and weaknesses of both tools, staff with expertise in their medication alerting system were asked to use French versions of the TEMAS and I-MeDeSA. After the use of each tool, participants were asked to complete the System Usability Scale (SUS) and answer questions about the understandability and usefulness of each tool. Finally, participants were asked to name their preferred tool. Numeric scores were statistically compared. Free-text responses were analyzed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Forty-five participants from 10 hospitals took part in the study. In terms of convergent validity, I-MeDeSA focuses more on the usability of the graphical user interface while TEMAS considers a wider range of usability principles. Both tools have a fair level of perceived usability (I-MeDeSA' SUS score = 61.85 and TEMAS' SUS score = 62.87), but results highlight that revisions are necessary to both tools to improve their usability. Participants found TEMAS more useful than I-MeDeSA (t = -3.63, p =.005) and had a clear preference for TEMAS to identify problems in formative evaluation (39 of 45; 0.867, p <.001) and to compare the usability of alert systems during the procurement process (36 of 45; 0.8, p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The TEMAS is perceived as more useful and is preferred by participants. The I-MeDeSA seems more relevant for quick evaluations that focus on the graphical user interface. The TEMAS seems to be more suitable for in-depth usability evaluations of alert systems. Even if both tools are perceived to be equally usable, they suffer from wording, instructional, and organizational problems that hinder their use. The results of this study will be used to improve the design of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS.

Association Between Exposure to Effervescent Paracetamol and Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure: A Case-Crossover Study.

We investigated whether effervescent paracetamol, as an important source of nondietary sodium and fluid load, is associated with a transient increase in the risk of hospitalization for acute heart failure (AHF). We conducted a unidirectional case-crossover study using data from the 1 in 97th representative sample from the French health care database. Subjects aged ≥18 years, hospitalized for AHF during the 2014-2016 period, were included. Exposure to effervescent paracetamol was compared between a risk period (ie, 15 days immediately before admission for AHF) and 3 earlier 15-day control periods, to test a possible trigger effect of effervescent paracetamol intake on AHF. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated with a conditional logistic regression. We identified 4301 patients hospitalized for AHF. We found that 5.7% of AHF subjects were exposed to effervescent paracetamol during the risk period, as compared with 4.1% during the control periods (aOR, 1.56 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.90]; P < .001). This association was also found in the subgroup of subjects with hypertension (aOR, 1.45 [95%CI, 1.13-1.87]; P = .004, n = 2648) and in the subgroup of subjects aged ≥83 years (aOR, 1.70 [95%CI: 1.28-2.24], P < .001, n = 2238). A similar analysis, considering exposure to noneffervescent paracetamol, did not support the existence of an indication bias likely to explain the association observed for effervescent paracetamol. This study suggests an association between effervescent paracetamol and admission for AHF and should be confirmed with other complementary study designs.

Effectiveness of a 'do not interrupt' vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of a 'do not interrupt' vest during medication administration rounds is recommended but there have been no controlled randomized studies to evaluate its impact on reducing administration errors. We aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing such a vest on reducing such errors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the types and potential clinical impact of errors, the association between errors and several risk factors (such as interruptions), and nurses' experiences. METHODS: This was a multicenter, cluster, controlled, randomized study (March-July 2017) in 29 adult units (4 hospitals). Data were collected by direct observation by trained observers. All nurses from selected units were informed. A 'Do not interrupt' vest was implemented in all units of the experimental group. A poster was placed at the entrance of these units to inform patients and relatives. The main outcome was the administration error rate (number of Opportunities for Error (OE), calculated as one or more errors divided by the Total Opportunities for Error (TOE) and multiplied by 100). RESULTS: We enrolled 178 nurses and 1346 patients during 383 medication rounds in 14 units in the experimental group and 15 units in the control group. During the intervention period, the administration error rates were 7.09% (188 OE with at least one error/2653 TOE) for the experimental group and 6.23% (210 OE with at least one error/3373 TOE) for the control group (p = 0.192). Identified risk factors (patient age, nurses' experience, nurses' workload, unit exposition, and interruption) were not associated with the error rate. The main error type observed for both groups was wrong dosage-form. Most errors had no clinical impact for the patient and the interruption rates were 15.04% for the experimental group and 20.75% for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention vest had no impact on medication administration error or interruption rates. Further studies need to be performed taking into consideration the limitations of our study and other risk factors associated with other interventions, such as nurse's training and/or a barcode system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PERMIS study protocol (V2-1, 11/04/2017) was approved by institutional review boards and ethics committees (CPP Ile de France number 2016-A00211-50, CNIL 21/03/2017, CCTIRS 11/04/2016). It is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03062852 , date of first registration: 23/02/2017).

Integration of a Commercial Barcode-Assisted Medication Dispensing System in a Teaching Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: A commercial barcode-assisted medication administration (BCMA) system was integrated to secure the medication process and particularly the dispensing stage by technicians and the administration stage with nurses. We aimed to assess the impact of this system on medication dispensing errors and barriers encountered during integration process. METHODS: We conducted a controlled randomized study in a teaching hospital, during dispensing process at the pharmacy department. Four wards were randomized in the experimental group and control group, with two wards using the system during 3 days with dedicated pharmacy technicians. The system was a closed loop system without information return to the computerized physician order entry system. The two dedicated technicians had a 1-week training session. Observations were performed by one observer among the four potential observers previously trained. The main outcomes assessed were dispensing error rates and the identification of barriers encountered to expose lessons learned from this study. RESULTS: There was no difference between the dispensing error rate of the control and experimental groups (7.9% for both, p = 0.927). We identified 10 barriers to pharmacy barcode-assisted system technology deployment. They concerned technical (problems with semantic interoperability interfaces, bad user interface, false errors generated, lack of barcodes), structural (poor integration with local information technology), work force (short staff training period, insufficient workforce), and strategic issues (system performance problems, insufficient budget). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the difficulties encountered in integrating a commercial system in current hospital information systems. Several issues need to be taken into consideration before the integration of a commercial barcode-assisted system in a teaching hospital. In our experience, interoperability of this system with the electronic health record is the key for the success of this process with an entire closed loop system from prescription to administration. BCMA system at the dispensing process remains essential to purchase securing medication administration process.

The impact of interventions by pharmacists collected in a computerised physician order entry context: a prospective observational study with a 10-year reassessment.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study assesses clinical interventions by pharmacists prospectively collected from medical and surgical wards, notably the acceptance of interventions, computerised physician order entry (CPOE)related problems, the potential impact of interventions on patient safety evaluated by a multidisciplinary committee, and their evolution over the 10 years since a first assessment. METHODS: A prospective observational study covering 13 months was conducted in a French teaching hospital with a patient information system that integrates an electronic health record (EHR) with a CPOE. Interventions by pharmacists were prospectively recorded using CPOE. All interventions were reviewed by two pharmacists. We assessed the interventions, the possible implications of the CPOE in prescribing errors, and the acceptance of interventions by physicians. A committee reviewed the potential clinical impact for patients. The results were compared with the same outcomes collected 10 years ago in the same hospital. RESULTS: A total of 2141 interventions by pharmacists were reviewed. Among them, 1589 (74.1%) were accepted by physicians. Regarding the potential clinical impact, a total of 1136 (53%) interventions concerned prescriptions that were potentially significant or serious for patients and 42 (2%) of them were potentially life-threatening. Ten years earlier, the acceptance rate was 23%. Moreover, 14.7% of errors were attributed to the use of the software, whereas 10 years earlier the rate of errors was 49%. CONCLUSIONS: The acceptance rate and frequency of CPOE-related errors were better than 10 years before, which is encouraging and shows the importance of regular training and collaboration with healthcare givers to reduce errors. The routine analysis of interventions by pharmacists with medical staff feedback should continue to improve their relevance and effectiveness.

Impact of drug storage systems: a quasi-experimental study with and without an automated-drug dispensing cabinet.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and benefits of an automated-drug dispensing cabinet (ADC) versus traditional floor stock storage (TFSS). DESIGN: A quasi-experimental multicenter study conducted during 2015. SETTING: A teaching hospital (814 beds) equipped with 43 ADCs and a not-for-profit teaching hospital (643 beds) equipped with 38 TFSS systems, in Paris, France. PARTICIPANTS: All the wards of the two hospitals were included in the study. INTERVENTION(S): ADC versus TFSS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): A composite outcome composed of cost and benefits. RESULTS: The total cost with payback period was substantially higher for the ADCs (574 006€ for 41 ADCs) than TFSS (190 305€ for 30 TFSS systems). The mean number of costly drugs and units were significantly higher for ADCs (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the mean number of overall drugs and units. There were significantly fewer urgent global deliveries with ADCs than TFSS units. Nurses' satisfaction with ADCs was high and the prevalence of medication process errors related to ADCs was low. No event due to storage errors was reported for ADCs and nine events were reported for TFSS units. On the contrary, informatic-related events increased with the use of ADCs, as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ADCs are well-established in wards and are particularly appreciated by nurses. A significant difference in the initial investment cost was confirmed, but it must be adjusted over time. This difference is offset in the long-term by gains in preparation time and fewer medication process errors, securing the medication process.

A centralized automated-dispensing system in a French teaching hospital: return on investment and quality improvement.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the return on investment (ROI) and quality improvement after implementation of a centralized automated-dispensing system after 8 years of use. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of ROI; before and after study to evaluate dispensing errors; user satisfaction questionnaire after 8 years of use. SETTING: The study was conducted at a French teaching hospital in the pharmacy department, which is equipped with decentralized automated medication cabinets in the wards. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacy staff (technicians and residents). INTERVENTION(S): Implementation of a centralized automated-dispensing robot. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The true ROI was prospectively and annually compared to estimated returns calculated after implementation and upgrade of the robot; dispensing errors determined by observation of global deliveries and the satisfaction of users based on a validated questionnaire were evaluated. RESULTS: Following the upgrade, we found little difference for the ROI (+1.86%). The payback period increased by almost 3 years. There was a significant reduction of dispensing errors, from 2.9% to 1.7% (P < 0.001). User satisfaction of the robot by the pharmacy staff was reported (score of 5.52 ± 1.20 out of 7). CONCLUSIONS: These systems are worthwhile investments and largely contribute to improving the quality and safety of the medication process.

Evaluation of exposure to effervescent drugs in a large health check-up population in France: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between high dietary sodium intake and hypertension is well established. Some drugs are associated with high-sodium content, particularly effervescent tablets (ETs). Despite a possible cardiovascular risk associated with the use of such drugs, observational data describing exposure to ETs in ambulatory subjects are lacking.This study aims to estimate the prevalence of exposure to ETs and to highlight factors associated with this exposure in a large French health check-up population. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were French individuals who underwent medical check-ups at the Investigations Préventives et Cliniques centre between April and June 2017. RESULTS: In total, 1043 subjects were included in the study. The prevalence of exposure to ETs in the last 30 days was 26.9% (95% CI 24.2% to 29.6%). Exposure was frequent (ie, two ETs per week or more in the last 30 days) for 7.3% of subjects. Self-medication was the major source of exposure (93.8%). Paracetamol, aspirin, vitamins and betaine accounted for 95.3% of the ETs used. The factors associated with this exposure by multivariate analysis were: male gender, Overseas French origin, depression and body mass index ≥25 kg/m2. A diagnosis of hypertension or treatment with diuretics were not protective factors against exposure to ETs. CONCLUSION: Exposure to ETs is frequent in the general population, particularly through self-medication. Clinical conditions associated with low-salt requirements were not associated with lower exposure to ETs, suggesting a lack of awareness by practitioners and patients about this iatrogenic issue.

Interventions to reduce nurses' medication administration errors in inpatient settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Serious medication administration errors are common in hospitals. Various interventions, including barcode-based technologies, have been developed to help prevent such errors. This systematic review and this meta-analysis focus on the efficacy of interventions for reducing medication administration errors. The types of error and their gravity were also studied. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and reference lists of relevant articles published between January 1975 and August 2014 were searched, without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies were included. Studies evaluating interventions for decreasing administration errors based on total opportunity for error method were included. Nurses administering medications to adult or child inpatients were considered eligible as participants. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The main outcome was the error rate without wrong-time errors measured at study level. A random effects model was used to evaluate the effects of interventions on administration errors. RESULTS: 5312 records from electronic database searches were identified. Seven studies were included: five were randomized controlled trials (including one crossover trial) and two were non-randomized controlled trials. Interventions were training-related (n=4; dedicated medication nurses, interactive CD-ROM program, simulation-based learning, pharmacist-led training program), and technology-related (n=3; computerized prescribing and automated medication dispensing systems). All studies were subject to a high risk of bias, mostly due to a lack of blinding to outcome assessment and a risk of contamination. No difference between the control group and the intervention group was found (OR=0.72 [0.39; 1.34], p=0.3). No fatal error was observed in the three studies evaluating the gravity of errors. CONCLUSIONS: This review did not find evidence that interventions can effectively decrease administration errors. In addition, most studies had a high risk of bias. More evaluation studies with stronger designs are required.

Drug administration errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Drug administration in the hospital setting is the last barrier before a possible error reaches the patient. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of administration error rate detected by the observation method. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library from 1966 to December 2011 and reference lists of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, and randomized controlled trials that measured the rate of administration errors in inpatients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers (senior pharmacists) independently identified studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted the data; the second reviewer checked the data. The main outcome was the error rate calculated as being the number of errors without wrong time errors divided by the Total Opportunity for Errors (TOE, sum of the total number of doses ordered plus the unordered doses given), and multiplied by 100. For studies that reported it, clinical impact was reclassified into four categories from fatal to minor or no impact. Due to a large heterogeneity, results were expressed as median values (interquartile range, IQR), according to their study design. RESULTS: Among 2088 studies, a total of 52 reported TOE. Most of the studies were cross-sectional studies (N=46). The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was 10.5% [IQR: 7.3%-21.7%]. No fatal error was observed and most errors were classified as minor in the 18 studies in which clinical impact was analyzed. We did not find any evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Administration errors are frequent among inpatients. The median error rate without wrong time errors for the cross-sectional studies using TOE was about 10%. A standardization of administration error rate using the same denominator (TOE), numerator and types of errors is essential for further publications.

Evaluation of drug administration errors in a teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors can occur at any of the three steps of the medication use process: prescribing, dispensing and administration. We aimed to determine the incidence, type and clinical importance of drug administration errors and to identify risk factors. METHODS: Prospective study based on disguised observation technique in four wards in a teaching hospital in Paris, France (800 beds). A pharmacist accompanied nurses and witnessed the preparation and administration of drugs to all patients during the three drug rounds on each of six days per ward. Main outcomes were number, type and clinical importance of errors and associated risk factors. Drug administration error rate was calculated with and without wrong time errors. Relationship between the occurrence of errors and potential risk factors were investigated using logistic regression models with random effects. RESULTS: Twenty-eight nurses caring for 108 patients were observed. Among 1501 opportunities for error, 415 administrations (430 errors) with one or more errors were detected (27.6%). There were 312 wrong time errors, ten simultaneously with another type of error, resulting in an error rate without wrong time error of 7.5% (113/1501). The most frequently administered drugs were the cardiovascular drugs (425/1501, 28.3%). The highest risks of error in a drug administration were for dermatological drugs. No potentially life-threatening errors were witnessed and 6% of errors were classified as having a serious or significant impact on patients (mainly omission). In multivariate analysis, the occurrence of errors was associated with drug administration route, drug classification (ATC) and the number of patient under the nurse's care. CONCLUSION: Medication administration errors are frequent. The identification of its determinants helps to undertake designed interventions.

Inappropriate medication use and risk of falls--a prospective study in a large community-dwelling elderly cohort.

BACKGROUND: Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication consumption in elderly were elaborated by Beers et al. These lists have been used worldwide to evaluate medical prescriptions but there is little epidemiologic evidence demonstrating negative consequences of inappropriate medication use. It has been reported that some drugs could increase the risk of falls, which are a frequent and serious problem in elderly population. We aimed to evaluate the association between the use of potentially inappropriate medications and the risk of falls. METHODS: The 3C Study is a multicentre prospective cohort study conducted in France with 4 years of follow-up. Non-institutionalized men and women aged 65 years or over (N = 6343) were randomly selected from electoral rolls. Data on socio-demographic, medical characteristics and medication use (based on self-reports and data from the national healthcare insurance) were collected. Use of inappropriate medication for elderly was defined from established criteria. Data about falls were collected at the two follow-up examinations (2 years and 4 years after baseline). The association between the exposure to inappropriate medications and the risk of falls was evaluated using multivariate models (Cox model and logistic regression). RESULTS: 32% of subjects reported inappropriate medication use at baseline and 29% at least two of the three examinations; 22% had fallen 2 times or more during follow-up. Overall, inappropriate medication users had an increased risk of falling. This increase was mainly due to the use of long-acting benzodiazepines (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval: [1.1-1.8], in both occasional and regular users), other inappropriate psychotropics (adjusted OR = 1.7 [1.7-2.7] in regular users), or medication with anticholinergic properties (adjusted OR = 1.6 [1.2-2.1] in regular users). Neither occasional, nor regular use of short- or intermediate-acting benzodiazepines was associated with an increased risk of falling. Further analysis in long-acting benzodiazepines users did not show any dose-effect relation between the number of prescriptions filled over a 3-year period and the risk of falling. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that use of inappropriate medications was associated with an increased risk of falling in elderly persons. This increase was mainly due to long-acting benzodiazepines and other inappropriate psychotropics, and to medications with anticholinergic properties.