Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32303219›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Understanding the utilisation of a novel interactive electronic medication safety dashboard in general practice: a mixed methods study.

Mark Jeffries, Wouter T Gude, Richard N Keers, Denham L Phipps, Richard Williams, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Benjamin Brown, Anthony J Avery, Niels Peek, Darren M Ashcroft

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark JeffriesCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. mark.jefferies@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6882-0350
Wouter T GudeAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Richard N KeersCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Denham L PhippsCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Richard WilliamsNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK.
Evangelos KontopantelisNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK.
Benjamin BrownNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK.
Anthony J AveryNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK.
Niels PeekNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), Manchester, UK.
Darren M AshcroftCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1214-20012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving medication safety is a major concern in primary care settings worldwide. The Salford Medication safety dASHboard (SMASH) intervention provided general practices in Salford (Greater Manchester, UK) with feedback on their safe prescribing and monitoring of medications through an online dashboard, and input from practice-based trained clinical pharmacists. In this study we explored how staff working in general practices used the SMASH dashboard to improve medication safety, through interactions with the dashboard to identify potential medication safety hazards and their workflow to resolve identified hazards.

methodsWe used a mixed-methods study design involving quantitative data from dashboard user interaction logs from 43 general practices during the first year of receiving the SMASH intervention, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 22 pharmacists and physicians from 18 practices in Salford.

resultsPractices interacted with the dashboard a median of 12.0 (interquartile range, 5.0-15.2) times per month during the first quarter of use to identify and resolve potential medication safety hazards, typically starting with the most prevalent hazards or those they perceived to be most serious. Having observed a potential hazard, pharmacists and practice staff worked together to resolve that in a sequence of steps (1) verifying the dashboard information, (2) reviewing the patient's clinical records, and (3) deciding potential changes to the patient's medicines. Over time, dashboard use transitioned towards regular but less frequent (median of 5.5 [3.5-7.9] times per month) checks to identify and resolve new cases. The frequency of dashboard use was higher in practices with a larger number of at-risk patients. In 24 (56%) practices only pharmacists used the dashboard; in 12 (28%) use by other practice staff increased as pharmacist use declined after the initial intervention period; and in 7 (16%) there was mixed use by both pharmacists and practice staff over time.

conclusionsAn online medication safety dashboard enabled pharmacists to identify patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing. They subsequently worked with GPs to resolve risks on a case-by-case basis, but there were marked variations in processes between some practices. Workload diminished over time as it shifted towards resolving new cases of hazardous prescribing.

Indexed as

General PracticeMedication ErrorsElectronicsHumansPharmacistsSafetyClinical pharmacyInformation technologyMedication safetyPrescribingPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID32303219
PMCPMC7164282
OpenAlexW3016715298

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.