Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35190423›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Strategies prescribers and pharmacists use to identify and mitigate adverse drug reactions in inpatient and outpatient care: a cognitive task analysis at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Khoa Anh Nguyen, Laura G Militello, Amanda Ifeachor, Karen J Arthur, Peter A Glassman, Alan J Zillich, Michael Weiner, Alissa L Russ-Jara

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Khoa Anh NguyenCenter for Health Information and Communication, Richard L Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA khoanguyen@cop.ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0096-0293
Laura G MilitelloApplied Decision Science, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Amanda IfeachorRichard L Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Karen J ArthurVA Health Services Research and Development Center on Implementing Evidence-Based Practice, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Peter A GlassmanPharmacy Benefits Management Services, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Alan J ZillichDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University, College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Michael WeinerCenter for Health Information and Communication, Richard L Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Alissa L Russ-JaraCenter for Health Information and Communication, Richard L Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a descriptive model of the cognitive processes used to identify and resolve adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the perspective of healthcare providers in order to inform future informatics efforts

settingInpatient and outpatient care at a tertiary care US Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

participantsPhysicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists who report ADRs. OUTCOMES: Descriptive model and emerging themes from interviews.

resultsWe conducted critical decision method interviews with 10 physicians and 10 pharmacists. No nurse practitioners submitted ADR incidents. We generated a descriptive model of an ADR decision-making process and analysed emerging themes, categorised into four stages: detection of potential ADR, investigation of the problem's cause, risk/benefit consideration, and plan, action and follow-up. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) relied on several confirmatory or disconfirmatory cues to detect and investigate potential ADRs. Evaluating risks and benefits of related medications played an essential role in HCPs' pursuits of solutions

conclusionsThis study provides an illustrative model of how HCPs detect problems and make decisions regarding ADRs. The design of supporting technology for potential ADR problems should align with HCPs' real-world cognitive strategies, to assist fully in detecting and preventing ADRs for patients.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsVeteransAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAmbulatory CareCognitionHumansInpatientsPharmacistsadverse eventsclinical pharmacologyhealth informatics

Identifiers

PMID35190423
PMCPMC8862429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.