An Analysis of Incident Reports Related to Electronic Medication Management: How They Change Over Time.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic medication management (EMM) systems have been shown to introduce new patient safety risks that were not possible, or unlikely to occur, with the use of paper charts. Our aim was to examine the factors that contribute to EMM-related incidents and how these incidents change over time with ongoing EMM use. METHODS: Incidents reported at 3 hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, were extracted using a keyword search and then screened to identify EMM-related reports. Data contained in EMM-related incident reports were then classified as unsafe acts made by users and the latent conditions contributing to each incident. RESULTS: In our sample, 444 incident reports were determined to be EMM related. Commission errors were the most frequent unsafe act reported by users (n = 298), whereas workarounds were reported in only 13 reports. User latent conditions (n = 207) were described in the highest number of incident reports, followed by conditions related to the organization (n = 200) and EMM design (n = 184). Over time, user unfamiliarity with the system remained a key contributor to reported incidents. Although fewer articles to electronic transfer errors were reported over time, incident reports related to the transfer of information between different computerized systems increased as hospitals adopted more clinical information systems. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic medication management-related incidents continue to occur years after EMM implementation and are driven by design, user, and organizational conditions. Although factors contribute to reported incidents in varying degrees over time, some factors are persistent and highlight the importance of continuously improving the EMM system and its use.

Electronic Medication Management Systems: Analysis of Enhancements to Reduce Errors and Improve Workflow.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medication management (eMM) has been shown to reduce medication errors; however, new safety risks have also been introduced that are associated with system use. No research has specifically examined the changes made to eMM systems to mitigate these risks. OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify system-related medication errors or workflow blocks that were the target of eMM system updates, including the types of medications involved, and (2) describe and classify the system enhancements made to target these risks. METHODS: In this retrospective qualitative study, documents detailing updates made from November 2014 to December 2019 to an eMM system were reviewed. Medication-related updates were classified according to "rationale for changes" and "changes made to the system." RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen updates, totaling 147 individual changes, were made to the eMM system over the 4-year period. The most frequent reasons for changes being made to the eMM were to prevent medication errors (24% of reasons), optimize workflow (22%), and support "work as done" on paper (16%). The most frequent changes made to the eMM were options added to lists (14% of all changes), extra information made available on the screen (8%), and the wording or phrasing of text modified (8%). Approximately a third of the updates (37%) related to high-risk medications. The reasons for system changes appeared to vary over time, as eMM functionality and use expanded. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review and categorize system updates made to overcome new safety risks associated with eMM use. Optimization of eMM is an ongoing process, which changes over time as users become more familiar with the system and use is expanded to more sites. Continuous monitoring of the system is necessary to detect areas for improvement and capitalize on the benefits an electronic system can provide.

A Tool for Evaluating Medication Alerting Systems: Development and Initial Assessment.

BACKGROUND: It is well known that recommendations from electronic medication alerts are seldom accepted or acted on by users. Key factors affecting the effectiveness of medication alerts include system usability and alert design. Thus, human factors principles that apply knowledge of human capabilities and limitations are increasingly used in the design of health technology to improve the usability of systems. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate a newly developed evidence-based self-assessment tool that allows the valid and reliable evaluation of computerized medication alerting systems. This tool was developed to be used by hospital staff with detailed knowledge of their hospital's computerized provider order entry system and alerts to identify and address potential system deficiencies. In this initial assessment, we aim to determine whether the items in the tool can measure compliance of medication alerting systems with human factors principles of design, the tool can be consistently used by multiple users to assess the same system, and the items are easy to understand and perceived to be useful for assessing medication alerting systems. METHODS: The Tool for Evaluating Medication Alerting Systems (TEMAS) was developed based on human factors design principles and consisted of 66 items. In total, 18 staff members recruited across 6 hospitals used the TEMAS to assess their medication alerting systems. Data collected from participant assessments were used to evaluate the validity, reliability, and usability of the TEMAS. Validity was assessed by comparing the results of the TEMAS with those of prior in-house evaluations. Reliability was measured using Krippendorff α to determine agreement among assessors. A 7-item survey was used to determine usability. RESULTS: The participants reported mostly negative (n=8) and neutral (n=7) perceptions of alerts in their medication alerting system. However, the validity of the TEMAS could not be directly tested, as participants were unaware of any results from prior in-house evaluations. The reliability of the TEMAS, as measured by Krippendorff α, was low to moderate (range 0.26-0.46); however, participant feedback suggests that individuals' knowledge of the system varied according to their professional background. In terms of usability, 61% (11/18) of participants reported that the TEMAS items were generally easy to understand; however, participants suggested the revision of 22 items to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: This initial assessment of the TEMAS allowed the identification of its components that required modification to improve usability and usefulness. It also revealed that for the TEMAS to be effective in facilitating a comprehensive assessment of a medication alerting system, it should be completed by a multidisciplinary team of hospital staff from both clinical and technical backgrounds to maximize their knowledge of systems.

Usability evaluation of an integrated electronic medication management system implemented in an oncology setting using the unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology.

BACKGROUND: Medication management processes in an Oncology setting are complex and difficult to examine in isolation from interrelated processes and contextual factors. This qualitative study aims to evaluate the usability of an Electronic Medication Management System (EMMS) implemented in a specialised oncology unit using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework. METHODS: The study was conducted in a 12-bed outpatient Oncology unit of a major teaching hospital 6 months following implementation of a commercial EMMS. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with doctors, nurses and pharmacists using the system to assess usability. The UTAUT framework was used to analyse the results, which facilitated evaluation of interrelated aspects and provided a structured summary of user experience and usability factors. RESULTS: Direct cross-comparison between user groups illustrated that doctors and pharmacists were generally satisfied with the facilitating conditions (hardware and training), but had divergent perceptions of performance (automation, standardised protocols and communication and documented) and effort (mental and temporal demand) expectancy. In counterpoint, nurses were generally satisfied across all constructs. Prior experience using an alternative EMMS influenced performance and effort expectancy and was related to early dissatisfaction with the EMMS. Furthermore, whilst not originally designed for the healthcare setting, the flexibility of the UTAUT allowed for translation to the hospital environment. CONCLUSION: Nurses demonstrated overall satisfaction with the EMMS, whilst doctors and pharmacists perceived usability problems, particularly related to restricted automaticity and system complexity, which hindered perceived EMMS success. The study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of the UTAUT framework to evaluate usability of an EMMS for multiple user groups in the Oncology setting.

Medication safety improvements during care transitions in an Australian intensive care unit following implementation of an electronic medication management system.

BACKGROUND: For patients requiring admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), transfers of care (TOC) during admission to and discharge from the ICU are particularly high-risk periods for medication errors. In the Australian setting, commonly general wards and the ICU do not share an integrated Electronic Medical ecord (EMR) and specifically an Electronic Medication Management System (EMMS) as part of the EMR. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a hospital wide integrated EMMS on medication error rates during ICU admission and at TOC. METHOD: A 6-month historical control study was performed before and after implementation of the EMMS in the ICU of a tertiary hospital. Prescribing errors detected by pharmacists in the study period were divided into phase 1, (pre-EMMS, 6months), phase 2 (3 months post implementation after shakedown stage) and phase 3 (next 3 months of post implementation). They were categorized as prescribing error types under system or clinical intervention. Chi square statistics and interrupted time series analysis were used to determine if there was significant change in the proportion of patients who had an error at TOC during each phase. Logistics regression was used to determine the relationship between the dependent (error type) and the independent variable (study phase) for errors that occurred during TOC. RESULTS: Errors occurred during TOC in 42 %, 64 % and 19 % of patients in phase 1, 2 and 3 respectively. There was a significant decline in the proportion of patients with an error between phase 1 and 3 (p < 0.01). During a patient's ICU admission, at least one medication error occurred in 28.3 %, 62.6 % and 25.1 % in phase 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Besides procedural errors, the likelihood of an error occurring was greatest in phase 1, compared to phase 2 and 3 across system-related error categories. CONCLUSION: Medication errors during TOC reduced following implementation of the integrated ICU EMMS. EMMS safety features facilitated reduced system related prescribing errors as well as the severity of errors made.

Do user preferences align with human factors assessment scores of drug-drug interaction alerts?

This study aimed to assess drug-drug interaction alert interfaces and to examine the relationship between compliance with human factors principles and user-preferences of alerts. Three reviewers independently evaluated drug-drug interaction alert interfaces in seven electronic systems using the Instrument-for-Evaluating-Human-Factors-Principles-in-Medication-Related-Decision-Support-Alerts (I-MeDeSA). Fifty-three doctors and pharmacists completed a survey to rate the alert interfaces from best to worst and reported on liked and disliked features. Human factors compliance and user-preferences of alerts were compared. Statistical analysis revealed no significant association between I-MeDeSA scores and user-preferences. However, the strengths and weaknesses of drug-drug interaction alerts from users' perspectives were in-line with the human factors constructs evaluated by the I-MeDeSA. I-MeDeSA in its current form, is unable to identify alerts that are preferred by the users. The design principles assessed by I-MeDeSA appear to be sound, but its arbitrary allocation of points to each human factors construct may not reflect the relative importance that the end-users place on different aspects of alert design.

What are incident reports telling us? A comparative study at two Australian hospitals of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system.

OBJECTIVES: To (i) compare medication errors identified at audit and observation with medication incident reports; (ii) identify differences between two hospitals in incident report frequency and medication error rates; (iii) identify prescribing error detection rates by staff. DESIGN: Audit of 3291 patient records at two hospitals to identify prescribing errors and evidence of their detection by staff. Medication administration errors were identified from a direct observational study of 180 nurses administering 7451 medications. Severity of errors was classified. Those likely to lead to patient harm were categorized as 'clinically important'. SETTING: Two major academic teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of medication errors identified from audit and from direct observation were compared with reported medication incident reports. RESULTS: A total of 12 567 prescribing errors were identified at audit. Of these 1.2/1000 errors (95% CI: 0.6-1.8) had incident reports. Clinically important prescribing errors (n = 539) were detected by staff at a rate of 218.9/1000 (95% CI: 184.0-253.8), but only 13.0/1000 (95% CI: 3.4-22.5) were reported. 78.1% (n = 421) of clinically important prescribing errors were not detected. A total of 2043 drug administrations (27.4%; 95% CI: 26.4-28.4%) contained ≥ 1 errors; none had an incident report. Hospital A had a higher frequency of incident reports than Hospital B, but a lower rate of errors at audit. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors with the potential to cause harm frequently go undetected. Reported incidents do not reflect the profile of medication errors which occur in hospitals or the underlying rates. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of using incident frequency to compare patient risk or quality performance within or across hospitals. New approaches including data mining of electronic clinical information systems are required to support more effective medication error detection and mitigation.

Best practice for obesity and weight management: finding success through linking effective gastric bypass surgery policy and health management.

Obesity is a health issue of epidemic proportions in the United States, creating a health and financial burden for Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial populations alike. While obesity has been linked to an increased risk for any number of health conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers, even a moderate weight loss can mitigate some of the negative medical consequences of unhealthy weight. Obese individuals are often unsuccessful at meeting their weight loss goals for a variety of reasons. Many are increasingly looking to gastric bypass surgery as an easy-fix weight loss solution without fully addressing underlying issues for the original weight gain and failures with previous attempts to lose weight. Because of this, over the past five years an increase in gastric bypass surgeries has resulted in cases with poor outcomes and a subsequent reaction by health plans and employers across the country to eliminate coverage. Others have determined that, while exclusion is not the answer, neither is coverage as standard policies allow. Instead, these groups are opting to implement best practice programs that merge individualized counseling, nutritional education/ planning, and physical activity goals with specific policy changes. Evidence has shown that they are achieving success in managing obesity and its impact on healthcare costs and outcomes.