ArticlePloS one2024
Risks in the analogue and digitally-supported medication process and potential solutions to increase patient safety in the hospital: A mixed methods study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn hospital medication errors are common. Our aim was to investigate risks of the analogue and digitally-supported medication process and any potential solutions.
methodsA mixed methods study including a structured literature search and online questionnaires based on the Delphi method was conducted. First, all risks were structured into main and sub-risks and second, risks were grouped into risk clusters. Third, healthcare experts assessed risk clusters regarding their likelihood of occurrence their possible impact on patient safety. Experts were also asked to estimate the potential for digital solutions and solutions that strengthen the competence of healthcare professionals.
resultsOverall, 160 main risks and 542 sub-risks were identified. Main risks were grouped into 43 risk clusters. 33 healthcare experts (56% female, 50% with >20 years professional-experience) ranked the likelihood of occurrence and the impact on patient safety in the top 15 risk clusters regarding the process steps: admission (n = 4), prescribing (n = 3), verifying (n = 1), preparing/dispensing (n = 3), administering (n = 1), discharge (n = 1), healthcare professional competence (n = 1), and patient adherence (n = 1). 28 healthcare experts (64% female, 43% with >20 years professional-experience) mostly suggested awareness building and training, strengthened networking, and involvement of pharmacists at point-of-care as likely solutions to strengthen healthcare professional competence. For digital solutions they primarily suggested a digital medication list, digital warning systems, barcode-technology, and digital support in integrated care.
conclusionsThe medication process holds a multitude of potential risks, in both the analogue and the digital medication process. Different solutions to strengthen healthcare professional competence and in the area of digitalization were identified that could help increase patient safety and minimize possible errors.
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.