Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Systematic Review of Quantitative Methods for Evaluating Electronic Medication Administration Record and Bar-Coded Medication Administration Usability.
Pruitt, Zoe M; Kazi, Sadaf; Weir, Charlene; Taft, Teresa; Busog, Deanna-Nicole; Ratwani, Raj; Hettinger, Aaron Z.
Afiliação
  • Pruitt ZM; National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, United States.
  • Kazi S; National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, United States.
  • Weir C; Department of Emergency Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, United States.
  • Taft T; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
  • Busog DN; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.
  • Ratwani R; National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, United States.
  • Hettinger AZ; National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, United States.
Appl Clin Inform ; 14(1): 185-198, 2023 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36889339
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Although electronic medication administration records (eMARs) and bar-coded medication administration (BCMA) have improved medication safety, poor usability of these technologies can increase patient safety risks.

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of our systematic review was to identify the impact of eMAR and BCMA design on usability, operationalized as efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction.

METHODS:

We retrieved peer-reviewed journal articles on BCMA and eMAR quantitative usability measures from PsycInfo and MEDLINE (1946-August 20, 2019), and EMBASE (1976-October 23, 2019). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we screened articles, extracted and categorized data into the usability categories of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, and evaluated article quality.

RESULTS:

We identified 1,922 articles and extracted data from 41 articles. Twenty-four articles (58.5%) investigated BCMA only, 10 (24.4%) eMAR only, and seven (17.1%) both BCMA and eMAR. Twenty-four articles (58.5%) measured effectiveness, 8 (19.5%) efficiency, and 17 (41.5%) satisfaction. Study designs included randomized controlled trial (n = 1; 2.4%), interrupted time series (n = 1; 2.4%), pretest/posttest (n = 21; 51.2%), posttest only (n = 14; 34.1%), and pretest/posttest and posttest only for different dependent variables (n = 4; 9.8%). Data collection occurred through observations (n = 19, 46.3%), surveys (n = 17, 41.5%), patient safety event reports (n = 9, 22.0%), surveillance (n = 6, 14.6%), and audits (n = 3, 7.3%).

CONCLUSION:

Of the 100 measures across the 41 articles, implementing BCMA and/or eMAR broadly resulted in an increase in measures of effectiveness (n = 23, 52.3%) and satisfaction (n = 28, 62.2%) compared to measures of efficiency (n = 3, 27.3%). Future research should focus on eMAR efficiency measures, utilize rigorous study designs, and generate specific design requirements.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Erros de Medicação / Sistemas de Medicação no Hospital Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Erros de Medicação / Sistemas de Medicação no Hospital Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article