Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28685047›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2017

Prioritizing medication safety in care of people with cancer: clinicians' views on main problems and solutions.

Lorainne Tudor Car, Nikolaos Papachristou, Catherine Urch, Azeem Majeed, Rifat Atun, Josip Car, Charles Vincent

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Use of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Risk Analysis of Drug Use in Patients with Lung Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Lorainne Tudor CarLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Nikolaos PapachristouDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Catherine UrchImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, ‎St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Rifat AtunDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Josip CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK.
Charles VincentDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer care is liable to medication errors due to the complex nature of cancer treatment, the common presence of comorbidities and the involvement of a number of clinicians in cancer care. While the frequency of medication errors in cancer care has been reported, little is known about their causal factors and effective prevention strategies. With a unique insight into the main safety issues in cancer treatment, frontline staff can help close this gap. In this study, we aimed to identify medication safety priorities in cancer patient care according to clinicians in North West London using PRIORITIZE, a novel priority-setting approach.

methodsThe project steering group determined the scope, the context and the criteria for prioritization. We then invited North West London cancer care clinicians to identify and prioritize main causes for, and solutions to, medication errors in cancer care. Forty cancer care providers submitted their suggestions which were thematically synthesized into a composite list of 20 distinct problems and 22 solutions. A group of 26 clinicians from the initial cohort ranked the composite list of suggestions using predetermined criteria.

resultsThe top ranked problems focused on patients' poor understanding of treatments due to language or education difficulties, clinicians' insufficient attention to patients' psychological distress, and inadequate information sharing among health care providers. The top ranked solutions were provision of guidance to patients and their carers on what to do when unwell, pre-chemotherapy work-up for all patients and better staff training. Overall, clinicians considered improved communication between health care providers, quality assurance procedures (during prescription and monitoring stages) and patient education as key strategies for improving cancer medication safety. Prescribing stage was identified as the most vulnerable to medication safety threats. The highest ranked suggestions received the strongest agreement among the clinicians.

conclusionsClinician-identified priorities for reducing medication errors in cancer care addressed various aspects of cancer treatment. Our findings open up an opportunity to assess the congruence between health care professional suggestions, currently implemented patient safety policies and evidence base.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth PrioritiesPatient SafetyHumansLondonMedication ErrorsNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID28685047
PMCPMC5475313

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.