Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26446747›Full record

ArticleHospital pharmacy2015

Nursing, Pharmacy, and Prescriber Knowledge and Perceptions of High-Alert Medications in a Large, Academic Medical Hospital.

Melanie J Engels, Scott L Ciarkowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hospital pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Melanie J EngelsUniversity of Michigan Health System , Ann Arbor, Michigan ; University of Michigan College of Pharmacy , Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Scott L CiarkowskiUniversity of Michigan Health System , Ann Arbor, Michigan ; University of Michigan College of Pharmacy , Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-alert medications pose a greater risk of causing significant harm to patients if used in error. The Joint Commission requires that hospitals define institution-specific high-alert medications and implement processes to ensure safe medication use.

methodNursing, pharmacy, and prescribers were asked to voluntarily complete a 34-question survey to assess their knowledge, experience, and perceptions regarding high-alert medications in an academic hospital.

resultsThe majority of respondents identified the organization's high-alert medications, the consequences of an error involving a high-alert medication, and the reversal agent. Most of the risk-reduction strategies within the institution were viewed as being effective by respondents. Forty-five percent of the respondents utilized a high-alert medication in the previous 24 hours. Only 14.2% had experienced an error with a high-alert medication in the previous 12 months, with 46% being near misses. The survey found the 5 rights for medication administration were not being utilized consistently. Respondents indicated that work experience or hospital orientation is the preferred learning experience for high-alert medications.

conclusionsThis study assessed all disciplines involved in the medication use process. Perceptions about high-alert medications differ between disciplines. Ongoing discipline-specific education is required to ensure that individuals accept accountability in the medication use process and to close knowledge gaps on high-alert medications and risk-reduction strategies.

Indexed as

high-alert medicationsnursingpharmacyprescribers

Identifiers

PMID26446747
PMCPMC4585568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.