Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23890121›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013

Comparative evaluation of different medication safety measures for the emergency department: physicians' usage and acceptance of training, poster, checklist and computerized decision support.

Brita Sedlmayr, Andrius Patapovas, Melanie Kirchner, Anja Sonst, Fabian Müller, Barbara Pfistermeister, Bettina Plank-Kiegele, Renate Vogler, Manfred Criegee-Rieck, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brita SedlmayrChair of Medical Informatics, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Krankenhausstraße 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. brita.sedlmayr@uk-erlangen.de
Andrius Patapovas
Melanie Kirchner
Anja Sonst
Fabian Müller
Barbara Pfistermeister
Bettina Plank-Kiegele
Renate Vogler
Manfred Criegee-Rieck
Hans-Ulrich Prokosch
Harald Dormann
Renke Maas
Thomas Bürkle
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEKlinikum Fulda · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough usage and acceptance are important factors for a successful implementation of clinical decision support systems for medication, most studies only concentrate on their design and outcome. Our objective was to comparatively investigate a set of traditional medication safety measures such as medication safety training for physicians, paper-based posters and checklists concerning potential medication problems versus the additional benefit of a computer-assisted medication check. We concentrated on usage, acceptance and suitability of such interventions in a busy emergency department (ED) of a 749 bed acute tertiary care hospital.

methodsA retrospective, qualitative evaluation study was conducted using a field observation and a questionnaire-based survey. Six physicians were observed while treating 20 patient cases; the questionnaire, based on the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2), has been answered by nine ED physicians.

resultsDuring field observations, we did not observe direct use of any of the implemented interventions for medication safety (paper-based and electronic). Questionnaire results indicated that the electronic medication safety check was the most frequently used intervention, followed by checklist and posters. However, despite their positive attitude, physicians most often stated that they use the interventions in only up to ten percent for subjectively "critical" orders. Main reasons behind the low usage were deficits in ease-of-use and fit to the workflow. The intention to use the interventions was rather high after overcoming these barriers.

conclusionsMethodologically, the study contributes to Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) research in an ED setting and confirms TAM2 as a helpful diagnostic tool in identifying barriers for a successful implementation of medication safety interventions. In our case, identified barriers explaining the low utilization of the implemented medication safety interventions - despite their positive reception - include deficits in accessibility, briefing for the physicians about the interventions, ease-of-use and compatibility to the working environment.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalChecklistDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug Information ServicesDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedDrug UtilizationGermanyHumansInservice TrainingInterviews as TopicMedication ErrorsMedication Systems, HospitalRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23890121
PMCPMC3733614
OpenAlexW1963712248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.