MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Work Interruptions and Their Contribution to Medication Administration Errors: An Evidence Review

2009· review· en· W2028542552 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMEDLINEWork (physics)MedicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In many surveys, nurses cite work interruptions as a significant contributor to medication administration errors. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on (1) nurses' interruption rates, (2) characteristics of such work interruptions, and (3) contribution of work interruptions to medication administration errors. SEARCH STRATEGY: CINHAL (1982-2008), MEDLINE (1980-2008), EMBASE (1980-2008), and PSYCINFO (1980-2008) were searched using a combination of keywords and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Original studies published in English using nurses as participants and for which work interruption frequencies are reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were identified and selected by two reviewers. Once selected, a single reviewer extracted data and assessed quality based on established criteria. Data on nurses' work interruption rates were synthesized to produce a pooled estimate. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were considered for analysis. A rate of 6.7 work interruptions per hour was obtained, based on 14 studies that reported both an observation time and work interruption frequency. Work interruptions are mostly initiated by nurses themselves through face-to-face interactions and are of short duration. A lower proportion of interruptions resulted from work system failures such as missing medication. One nonexperimental study documented the contribution of work interruptions to medication administration errors with evidence of a significant association (p = 0.01) when errors related to time of administration are excluded from the analysis. Conceptual shortcomings were noted in a majority of reviewed studies, which included the absence of theoretical underpinnings and a diversity of definitions of work interruptions. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should demonstrate improved methodological rigor through a precise definition of work interruptions and reliability reporting to document work interruption characteristics and their potential contribution to medication administration errors, considering the limited evidence found. Meanwhile, efforts should be made to reduce the number of work interruptions experienced by nurses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.292
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it