ArticleScandinavian journal of caring sciences2022
Nursing staff's assessments of medication management process in the psychiatric and operative domains: A cross-sectional study after introduction of an electronic medication chart.
Article in Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient safety incidents in the psychiatric inpatient setting: determinants, consequences, and strategies. A systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Methods for studying medication safety following electronic health record implementation in acute care: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesTo describe nursing staff's assessments of medication management process in the psychiatric and operative domains after introduction of an electronic medication chart.
backgroundThe medication management process includes all structures and practices within the organisation that guide and support medication administration and related procedures.
designA cross-sectional survey.
methodsA Finnish version of the Medication Administration System - Nurses Assessment of Satisfaction (modified MAS-NAS) paper-based questionnaire was sent to all nursing staff (N = 855) working in operative (n = 498) and psychiatric (n = 357) domains in one central hospital. Data were analysed using statistical methods.
resultsIn total, 324 nursing staff members participated. More than half agreed that medication management is efficient (64%), safe for patients (76%), and that the current medication administration system provides the necessary medical treatment information (e.g. prescriptions by physicians, medication data) (64%). Respondents' overall satisfaction with medication management process was slightly above average on a scale from 1 to 10 (mean = 6.2; SD = 1.8; median = 7, range 2-9). Respondents who used electronic medication chart reported higher overall satisfaction with medication management process (median = 7, mean = 6.1, SD = 1.8 and range 2-9) than those not using it (median = 6.5, mean = 6.3, SD = 1.6 and range 2-9). No statistically significant difference was found (U = 8552.000, p = 0.33).
conclusionsThis study revealed several problems in the medication management process. The results can be used in developing the medication management process. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Electronic medication chart should be used and developed further in terms of efficacy, safety and access. One year after the electronic medication chart was introduced, only half of the respondents had used it. That is why implementation of electronic systems or technological applications should be carefully considered as a whole.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.