MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107434061 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002484

Mitigating errors caused by interruptions during medication verification and administration: interventions in a simulated ambulatory chemotherapy setting

2014· article· en· W2107434061 on OpenAlexaff
Varuna Prakash, Christine Koczmara, Pamela Savage, Katherine Trip, Janice Stewart, Tara McCurdie, Joseph A Cafazzo, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionAmbulatoryMedication errorEmergency medicinePatient safetySurgeryNursingHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nurses are frequently interrupted during medication verification and administration; however, few interventions exist to mitigate resulting errors, and the impact of these interventions on medication safety is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to (A) assess the effects of interruptions on medication verification and administration errors, and (B) design and test the effectiveness of targeted interventions at reducing these errors. METHODS: The study focused on medication verification and administration in an ambulatory chemotherapy setting. A simulation laboratory experiment was conducted to determine interruption-related error rates during specific medication verification and administration tasks. Interventions to reduce these errors were developed through a participatory design process, and their error reduction effectiveness was assessed through a postintervention experiment. RESULTS: Significantly more nurses committed medication errors when interrupted than when uninterrupted. With use of interventions when interrupted, significantly fewer nurses made errors in verifying medication volumes contained in syringes (16/18; 89% preintervention error rate vs 11/19; 58% postintervention error rate; p=0.038; Fisher's exact test) and programmed in ambulatory pumps (17/18; 94% preintervention vs 11/19; 58% postintervention; p=0.012). The rate of error commission significantly decreased with use of interventions when interrupted during intravenous push (16/18; 89% preintervention vs 6/19; 32% postintervention; p=0.017) and pump programming (7/18; 39% preintervention vs 1/19; 5% postintervention; p=0.017). No statistically significant differences were observed for other medication verification tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Interruptions can lead to medication verification and administration errors. Interventions were highly effective at reducing unanticipated errors of commission in medication administration tasks, but showed mixed effectiveness at reducing predictable errors of detection in medication verification tasks. These findings can be generalised and adapted to mitigate interruption-related errors in other settings where medication verification and administration are required.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207