Patient safety classifications, taxonomies and ontologies, part 2: A systematic review on content coverage.

BACKGROUND: Content coverage of patient safety ontology and classification systems should be evaluated to provide a guide for users to select appropriate ones for specific applications. In this review, we identified and compare content coverage of patient safety classifications and ontologies. METHODS: We searched different databases and ontology/classification repositories to identify these classifications and ontologies. We included patient safety-related taxonomies, ontologies, classifications, and terminologies. We identified and extracted different concepts covered by these systems and mapped these concepts to international classification for patient safety (ICPS) and finally compared the content of these systems. RESULTS: Finally, 89 papers (77 classifications or ontologies) were analyzed. Thirteen classifications have been developed to cover all medical domains. Among specific domain systems, most systems cover medication (16), surgery (8), medical devices (3), general practice (3), and primary care (3). The most common patient safety-related concepts covered in these systems include incident types (41), contributing factors/hazards (31), patient outcomes (29), degree of harm (25), and action (18). However, stage/phase (6), incident characteristics (5), detection (5), people involved (5), organizational outcomes (4), error type (4), and care setting (3) are some of the less covered concepts in these classifications/ontologies. CONCLUSION: Among general systems, ICPS, World Health Organization's Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART), and Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE) cover most patient safety concepts and can be used as a gold standard for all medical domains. As a result, reporting systems could make use of these broad classifications, but the majority of their covered concepts are related to patient outcomes, with the exception of ICPS, which covers other patient safety concepts. However, the ICPS does not cover specialized domain concepts. For specific medical domains, MedDRA, NCC MERP, OPAE, ADRO, PPST, OCCME, TRTE, TSAHI, and PSIC-PC provide the broadest coverage of concepts. Many of the patient safety classifications and ontologies are not formally registered or available as formal classification/ontology in ontology repositories such as BioPortal. This study may be used as a guide for choosing appropriate classifications for various applications or expanding less developed patient safety classifications/ontologies. Furthermore, the same concepts are not represented by the same terms; therefore, the current study could be used to guide a harmonization process for existing or future patient safety classifications/ontologies.

Patient safety classifications, taxonomies and ontologies: A systematic review on development and evaluation methodologies.

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety classifications/ontologies have been developed and evaluated using a variety of methods. The purpose of this review was to discuss and analyze the methodologies for developing and evaluating patient safety classifications/ontologies. METHODS: Studies that developed or evaluated patient safety classifications, terminologies, taxonomies, or ontologies were searched through Google Scholar, Google search engines, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal, Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and World Health Organization (WHO) websites and Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct. We updated our search on 30 February 2021 and included all studies published until the end of 2020. Studies that developed or evaluated classifications only for patient safety and provided information on how they were developed or evaluated were included. Systems with covered patient safety terms (such as ICD-10) but are not specifically developed for patient safety were excluded. The quality and the risk of bias of studies were not assessed because all methodologies and criteria were intended to be covered. In addition, we analyzed the data through descriptive narrative synthesis and compared and classified the development and evaluation methods and evaluation criteria according to available development and evaluation approaches for biomedical ontologies. RESULTS: We identified 84 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 70 classifications/ontologies, nine of which were for the general medical domain. The most papers were published in 2010 and 2011, with 8 and 7 papers, respectively. The United States (50) and Australia (23) have the most studies. The most commonly used methods for developing classifications/ontologies included the use of existing systems (for expanding or mapping) (44) and qualitative analysis of event reports (39). The most common evaluation methods were coding or classifying some safety report samples (25), quantitative analysis of incidents based on the developed classification (24), and consensus among physicians (16). The most commonly applied evaluation criteria were reliability (27), content and face validity (9), comprehensiveness (6), usability (5), linguistic clarity (5), and impact (4), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the weaknesses and strengths of the development/evaluation methods, it is advised that more than one method for development or evaluation, as well as evaluation criteria, should be used. To organize the processes of developing classification/ontologies, well-established approaches such as Methontology are recommended. The most prevalent evaluation methods applied in this domain are well fitted to the biomedical ontology evaluation methods, but it is also advised to apply some evaluation approaches such as logic, rules, and Natural language processing (NLP) based in combination with other evaluation approaches. This research can assist domain researchers in developing or evaluating domain ontologies using more complete methodologies. There is also a lack of reporting consistency in the literature and same methods or criteria were reported with different terminologies.

The effects of clinical decision support system for prescribing medication on patient outcomes and physician practice performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) for Prescribing are one of the innovations designed to improve physician practice performance and patient outcomes by reducing prescription errors. This study was therefore conducted to examine the effects of various CDSSs on physician practice performance and patient outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review was carried out by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2019. The studies were independently reviewed by two researchers. Any discrepancies in the eligibility of the studies between the two researchers were then resolved by consulting the third researcher. In the next step, we performed a meta-analysis based on medication subgroups, CDSS-type subgroups, and outcome categories. Also, we provided the narrative style of the findings. In the meantime, we used a random-effects model to estimate the effects of CDSS on patient outcomes and physician practice performance with a 95% confidence interval. Q statistics and I2 were then used to calculate heterogeneity. RESULTS: On the basis of the inclusion criteria, 45 studies were qualified for analysis in this study. CDSS for prescription drugs/COPE has been used for various diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, AIDS, appendicitis, kidney disease, malaria, high blood potassium, and mental diseases. In the meantime, other cases such as concurrent prescribing of multiple medications for patients and their effects on the above-mentioned results have been analyzed. The study shows that in some cases the use of CDSS has beneficial effects on patient outcomes and physician practice performance (std diff in means = 0.084, 95% CI 0.067 to 0.102). It was also statistically significant for outcome categories such as those demonstrating better results for physician practice performance and patient outcomes or both. However, there was no significant difference between some other cases and traditional approaches. We assume that this may be due to the disease type, the quantity, and the type of CDSS criteria that affected the comparison. Overall, the results of this study show positive effects on performance for all forms of CDSSs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the positive effects of the CDSS can be due to factors such as user-friendliness, compliance with clinical guidelines, patient and physician cooperation, integration of electronic health records, CDSS, and pharmaceutical systems, consideration of the views of physicians in assessing the importance of CDSS alerts, and the real-time alerts in the prescription.

The challenges of the family physician policy in Iran: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative researches.

Background: A good level of health requires the establishment of primary health care. Family physician policy (FPP) is probably one of such initiatives, which enables societies attaining the universal health coverage. Objective: The present study is the first systematic review and meta-synthesis that seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges for FPP in Iran. Method: Several international scholarly databases (namely, ISI/Web of Sciences, PubMed/MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL via EBSCO), as well as three Iranian databases [MagIran, Irandoc and Scientific Information Database (SID) databases], were mined from January 2006 to December 2017. The Noblit & Hare approach was used to analyse the selected studies. Results: Based on the study inclusion criteria, seven studies were retained. Initially, 133 codes were identified. In the second step, two of the authors examined the codes and merged themes based on their similarities and shared meaning. New codes were created through discussion. In the next and final step, eight themes emerged, namely, (i) financing; (ii) motivational factors; (iii) education; (iv) referral system; (v) performance evaluation; (vi) problems with health policy; (vii) health information system; and (viii) culture-building for proper policy implementation. Conclusion: Although more than 10 years have passed since the implementation of FPP in Iran, and despite its positive effects on health, there are still challenges in implementing this policy, which makes it difficult to achieve its objectives. Health decision- and policy-makers in Iran should address these challenges and use all available capacities to face them.

Challenges and Facilitators of Using Smartphones in Educational Activities: Medical and Nursing Students' Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Todays, smartphone technologies and applications are used in the medical and nursing fields. Medical and nursing students are among the groups in which the use of these tools is observed. OBJECTIVES: To investigate their views on the barriers and facilitators of the use of these technologies. METHODS: Four hundred people (200 people from each group) were invited randomly. A questionnaire was used to collect data. To collect data, hospitals were referred and the questionnaires were provided to students and after completion, they were collected. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software and descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: The most important barriers from the students' view included internet problems in the university or hospital, lack of technical support for this technology in the hospital or university, the quality of existing applications, lack of appropriate Apps in the local language, non-introduction of appropriate Apps and not knowing the right Apps. The most important facilitators were the appropriate support services in the university or hospital, placing the appropriate Apps on the department or university website, designing native Apps with the participation of experts, and introducing the appropriate Apps by professors or universities. CONCLUSION: The use of Apps is increasing among medical and nursing students. In this regard, attention to the existing barriers and their elimination and strengthening the facilitators, and providing the necessary technical and educational infrastructure to facilitate the useful applications should be considered by decision-makers.

Patient Safety Classifications for Health Information Technology (HIT) and Medical Devices: A Review on Available Systems.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety classifications are used to collect, classify and analyze patient safety data. OBJECTIVE: This review was conducted to identify and compare the subject and coverage of existing patient safety classifications for Health Information Technology (HIT) and medical devices in which HIT may cover. METHODS: All studies in patient safety that developed or extended any type of classification in HIT and medical devices were included. We identified and classified the covered concepts in these systems. RESULTS: We identified 7 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 6 classifications. The most common patient safety subjects included adverse events and medication errors. Incident types and contributing factors/hazards were the most frequently covered concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety classifications in HIT cover more concepts and classes than medical device classifications. It is therefore recommended to improve existing classification systems in terms of covered concepts and classes.