-
Human Resources For Health Jun 2020Workforce studies often identify burnout as a nursing 'outcome'. Yet, burnout itself-what constitutes it, what factors contribute to its development, and what the wider...
BACKGROUND
Workforce studies often identify burnout as a nursing 'outcome'. Yet, burnout itself-what constitutes it, what factors contribute to its development, and what the wider consequences are for individuals, organisations, or their patients-is rarely made explicit. We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of research that examines theorised relationships between burnout and other variables, in order to determine what is known (and not known) about the causes and consequences of burnout in nursing, and how this relates to theories of burnout.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We included quantitative primary empirical studies (published in English) which examined associations between burnout and work-related factors in the nursing workforce.
RESULTS
Ninety-one papers were identified. The majority (n = 87) were cross-sectional studies; 39 studies used all three subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Scale to measure burnout. As hypothesised by Maslach, we identified high workload, value incongruence, low control over the job, low decision latitude, poor social climate/social support, and low rewards as predictors of burnout. Maslach suggested that turnover, sickness absence, and general health were effects of burnout; however, we identified relationships only with general health and sickness absence. Other factors that were classified as predictors of burnout in the nursing literature were low/inadequate nurse staffing levels, ≥ 12-h shifts, low schedule flexibility, time pressure, high job and psychological demands, low task variety, role conflict, low autonomy, negative nurse-physician relationship, poor supervisor/leader support, poor leadership, negative team relationship, and job insecurity. Among the outcomes of burnout, we found reduced job performance, poor quality of care, poor patient safety, adverse events, patient negative experience, medication errors, infections, patient falls, and intention to leave.
CONCLUSIONS
The patterns identified by these studies consistently show that adverse job characteristics-high workload, low staffing levels, long shifts, and low control-are associated with burnout in nursing. The potential consequences for staff and patients are severe. The literature on burnout in nursing partly supports Maslach's theory, but some areas are insufficiently tested, in particular, the association between burnout and turnover, and relationships were found for some MBI dimensions only.
Topics: Burnout, Professional; Health Status; Humans; Internal-External Control; Job Satisfaction; Leadership; Nurse's Role; Nurses; Patient Safety; Personnel Turnover; Quality of Health Care; Sick Leave; Time Factors; Workload; Workplace
PubMed: 32503559
DOI: 10.1186/s12960-020-00469-9 -
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2020Medication errors occur at any point of the medication management process, and are a major cause of death and harm globally. The objective of this review was to compare... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Medication errors occur at any point of the medication management process, and are a major cause of death and harm globally. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of different interventions in reducing prescribing, dispensing and administration medication errors in acute medical and surgical settings.
METHODS
The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019124587). The library databases, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to February 2019. Studies were included if they involved testing of an intervention aimed at reducing medication errors in adult, acute medical or surgical settings. Meta-analyses were performed to examine the effectiveness of intervention types.
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles were included with 12 intervention types identified. Meta-analysis showed that prescribing errors were reduced by pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, computerised medication reconciliation, pharmacist partnership, prescriber education, medication reconciliation by trained mentors and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) as single interventions. Medication administration errors were reduced by CPOE and the use of an automated drug distribution system as single interventions. Combined interventions were also found to be effective in reducing prescribing or administration medication errors. No interventions were found to reduce dispensing error rates. Most studies were conducted at single-site hospitals, with chart review being the most common method for collecting medication error data. Clinical significance of interventions was examined in 21 studies. Since many studies were conducted in a pre-post format, future studies should include a concurrent control group.
CONCLUSION
The systematic review identified a number of single and combined intervention types that were effective in reducing medication errors, which clinicians and policymakers could consider for implementation in medical and surgical settings. New directions for future research should examine interdisciplinary collaborative approaches comprising physicians, pharmacists and nurses.
LAY SUMMARY
.
INTRODUCTION
Medication errors or mistakes may happen at any time in hospital, and they are a major reason for death and harm around the world.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of different activities in reducing medication errors occurring with prescribing, giving and supplying medications in adult medical and surgical settings in hospital.
METHODS
Six library databases were examined from the time they were developed to February 2019. Studies were included if they involved testing of an activity aimed at reducing medication errors in adult medical and surgical settings in hospital. Statistical analysis was used to look at the success of different types of activities.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included with 12 activity types identified. Statistical analysis showed that prescribing errors were reduced by pharmacists matching medications, computers matching medications, partnerships with pharmacists, prescriber education, medication matching by trained physicians, and computerised physician order entry (CPOE). Medication-giving errors were reduced by the use of CPOE and an automated medication distribution system. The combination of different activity types were also shown to be successful in reducing prescribing or medication-giving errors. No activities were found to be successful in reducing errors relating to supplying medications. Most studies were conducted at one hospital with reviewing patient charts being the most common way for collecting information about medication errors. In 21 out of 34 articles, researchers examined the effect of activity types on patient harm caused by medication errors. Many studies did not involve the use of a control group that does not receive the activity.
CONCLUSION
A number of activity types were shown to be successful in reducing prescribing and medication-giving errors. New directions for future research should examine activities comprising health professionals working together.
PubMed: 33240478
DOI: 10.1177/2042098620968309 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131). Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724). Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311). Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.
Topics: Adult; Hospitalization; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Medication Reconciliation; Pharmacists
PubMed: 34822165
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009985.pub2 -
Drug Safety Nov 2013Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Underlying systems factors have been seen to be crucial contributors to the occurrence of medication errors. By understanding the causes of these errors, the most appropriate interventions can be designed and implemented to minimise their occurrence.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to systematically review and appraise empirical evidence relating to the causes of medication administration errors (MAEs) in hospital settings.
DATA SOURCES
Nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ASSIA, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Social Science Citations Index) were searched between 1985 and May 2013.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible publications through title analysis followed by abstract and then full text examination. English language publications reporting empirical data on causes of MAEs were included. Reference lists of included articles and relevant review papers were hand searched for additional studies. Studies were excluded if they did not report data on specific MAEs, used accounts from individuals not directly involved in the MAE concerned or were presented as conference abstracts with insufficient detail.
DATA APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
A total of 54 unique studies were included. Causes of MAEs were categorised according to Reason's model of accident causation. Studies were assessed to determine relevance to the research question and how likely the results were to reflect the potential underlying causes of MAEs based on the method(s) used.
RESULTS
Slips and lapses were the most commonly reported unsafe acts, followed by knowledge-based mistakes and deliberate violations. Error-provoking conditions influencing administration errors included inadequate written communication (prescriptions, documentation, transcription), problems with medicines supply and storage (pharmacy dispensing errors and ward stock management), high perceived workload, problems with ward-based equipment (access, functionality), patient factors (availability, acuity), staff health status (fatigue, stress) and interruptions/distractions during drug administration. Few studies sought to determine the causes of intravenous MAEs. A number of latent pathway conditions were less well explored, including local working culture and high-level managerial decisions. Causes were often described superficially; this may be related to the use of quantitative surveys and observation methods in many studies, limited use of established error causation frameworks to analyse data and a predominant focus on issues other than the causes of MAEs among studies.
LIMITATIONS
As only English language publications were included, some relevant studies may have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence from studies included in this systematic review suggests that MAEs are influenced by multiple systems factors, but if and how these arise and interconnect to lead to errors remains to be fully determined. Further research with a theoretical focus is needed to investigate the MAE causation pathway, with an emphasis on ensuring interventions designed to minimise MAEs target recognised underlying causes of errors to maximise their impact.
Topics: Data Collection; Databases, Factual; Drug Prescriptions; Hospitals, Teaching; Humans; Medication Errors; Models, Theoretical; Patient Care Team; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Workload
PubMed: 23975331
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0090-2 -
BMJ Quality & Safety Jul 2020Double checking medication administration in hospitals is often standard practice, particularly for high-risk drugs, yet its effectiveness in reducing medication... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Double checking medication administration in hospitals is often standard practice, particularly for high-risk drugs, yet its effectiveness in reducing medication administration errors (MAEs) and improving patient outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating evidence of the effectiveness of double checking to reduce MAEs.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Ovid@Journals, OpenGrey) were searched for studies evaluating the use and effectiveness of double checking on reducing medication administration errors in a hospital setting. Included studies were required to report any of three outcome measures: an effect estimate such as a risk ratio or risk difference representing the association between double checking and MAEs, or between double checking and patient harm; or a rate representing adherence to the hospital's double checking policy.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were identified, including 10 studies using an observational study design, two randomised controlled trials and one randomised trial in a simulated setting. Studies included both paediatric and adult inpatient populations and varied considerably in quality. Among three good quality studies, only one showed a significant association between double checking and a reduction in MAEs, another showed no association, and the third study reported only adherence rates. No studies investigated changes in medication-related harm associated with double checking. Reported double checking adherence rates ranged from 52% to 97% of administrations. Only three studies reported if and how independent and primed double checking were differentiated.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient evidence that double versus single checking of medication administration is associated with lower rates of MAEs or reduced harm. Most comparative studies fail to define or investigate the level of adherence to independent double checking, further limiting conclusions regarding effectiveness in error prevention. Higher-quality studies are needed to determine if, and in what context (eg, drug type, setting), double checking produces sufficient benefits in patient safety to warrant the considerable resources required. CRD42018103436.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Humans; Medication Errors; Observational Studies as Topic; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31391315
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009552 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Oct 2019Computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems are electronic prescribing strategies that are increasingly used to improve patient safety.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems are electronic prescribing strategies that are increasingly used to improve patient safety. Previous reviews show limited effect on patient outcomes. Our objective was to assess the impact of electronic prescribing strategies on medication errors and patient harm in hospitalized patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from January 2007 to January 2018. We included prospective studies that compared hospital-based electronic prescribing strategies with control, and reported on medication error or patient harm. Data were abstracted by two reviewers and pooled using random effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included; comprised of 11 randomized control trials and 27 non-randomized interventional studies. Electronic prescribing strategies reduced medication errors (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.13, 0.46), I 98%, n = 11) and dosing errors (RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.08, 0.38), I 96%, n = 9), with both risk ratios significantly affected by advancing year of publication. There was a significant effect of electronic prescribing strategies on adverse drug events (ADEs) (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.40, 0.68), I 0%, n = 2), but not on preventable ADEs (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.30, 1.01), I 78%, n = 3), hypoglycemia (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.62-1.70), I 28%, n = 7), length of stay (MD - 0.18 (95% - 1.42, 1.05), I 94%, n = 7), or mortality (RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.79, 1.19), I 74%, n = 9). The quality of evidence was rated very low.
DISCUSSION
Electronic prescribing strategies decrease medication errors and adverse drug events, but had no effect on other patient outcomes. Conservative interpretations of these findings are supported by significant heterogeneity and the preponderance of low-quality studies.
Topics: Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Electronic Prescribing; Humans; Medication Errors; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31396810
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05236-8 -
PloS One 2015One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing activity. To monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and safety of this process, evidence-based quality indicators can be used.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of study was to identify evidence-based quality indicators (structure, process and outcome) for safe in-hospital medication preparation and administration.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2015. Additionally, nine databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the method for quality indicator development combined a literature search with expert panel opinion, (2) the study contained quality indicators on medication safety, and (3) any of the quality indicators were applicable to hospital medication preparation and administration. A multidisciplinary team appraised the studies independently using the AIRE instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. Quality indicators applicable to in-hospital medication preparation and administration were extracted using a structured form.
RESULTS
The search identified 1683 studies, of which 64 were reviewed in detail and five met the inclusion criteria. Overall, according to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose; most of them applied stakeholder involvement and used evidence reasonably; usage of the indicator in practice was scarcely described. A total of 21 quality indicators were identified: 5 structure indicators (e.g. safety management and high alert medication), 11 process indicators (e.g. verification and protocols) and 5 outcome indicators (e.g. harm and death). These quality indicators partially cover the 7 rights.
CONCLUSION
Despite the relatively small number of included studies, the identified quality indicators can serve as an excellent starting point for further development of nursing specific quality indicators for medication safety. Especially on the right patient, right route, right time and right documentation there is room future development of quality indicators.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Drug Prescriptions; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Quality Indicators, Health Care
PubMed: 25884623
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122695 -
BMJ Open Feb 2016Pharmacists play a role in providing medication reconciliation. However, data on effectiveness on patients' clinical outcomes appear inconclusive. Thus, the aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Pharmacists play a role in providing medication reconciliation. However, data on effectiveness on patients' clinical outcomes appear inconclusive. Thus, the aim of this study was to systematically investigate the effect of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO from inception to December 2014. Included studies were all published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care, aimed at improving medication reconciliation programmes. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
17 studies involving 21,342 adult patients were included. Eight studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most studies targeted multiple transitions and compared comprehensive medication reconciliation programmes including telephone follow-up/home visit, patient counselling or both, during the first 30 days of follow-up. The pooled relative risks showed a more substantial reduction of 67%, 28% and 19% in adverse drug event-related hospital revisits (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.53), emergency department (ED) visits (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92) and hospital readmissions (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) in the intervention group than in the usual care group, respectively. The pooled data on mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16) and composite readmission and/or ED visit (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) did not differ among the groups. There was significant heterogeneity in the results related to readmissions and ED visits, however. Subgroup analyses based on study design and outcome timing did not show statistically significant results.
CONCLUSION
Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes are effective at improving post-hospital healthcare utilisation. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes that include some component aimed at improving medication safety.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Medication Reconciliation; Patient Admission; Patient Discharge; Patient Readmission; Pharmacists; Pharmacy Service, Hospital
PubMed: 26908524
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010003 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2019Medication administration accounts for 40% of the nursing clinical activity in hospitals and nurses play a central role in granting the patient safety, as they are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Medication administration accounts for 40% of the nursing clinical activity in hospitals and nurses play a central role in granting the patient safety, as they are directly responsible for the patient care. This review aims at analyzing the correlation between the clinical risk management and the occurrence of medication errors and the effects of the shift work (such as excessive fatigue and sleep deprivation after a shift in hospital) on inpatient nurses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This paper adheres to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement and pertinent articles were selected based on inclusion criteria and quality assessment factors. Two reviewers searched the bibliographic databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL to collect all the available articles in English and Italian issued between 1992 and August 2017.
RESULTS
The reviewers analyzed 19 of the 723 initially extracted references, as they focused on the impact of workload, shifts and sleep deprivation on the probability of making medication errors.
CONCLUSIONS
The main reasons behind medication errors are stress, fatigue, increased workload, night shifts, nurse staffing ratio and workflow interruptions. These factors can have a significant negative impact on the health and the performance of the employees. It is desirable to extend and deepen the research to identify appropriate measures to minimize medication errors.
Topics: Humans; Medication Errors; Nurses; Patient Safety; Shift Work Schedule; Work Schedule Tolerance; Workload
PubMed: 31173328
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201905_17963 -
Nursing Open Jan 2022The aim of this review was to synthesize the best available evidence on the impact of nurses' safety attitudes on patient outcomes in acute-care hospitals. (Review)
Review
AIMS
The aim of this review was to synthesize the best available evidence on the impact of nurses' safety attitudes on patient outcomes in acute-care hospitals.
DESIGN
Systematic review with a narrative synthesis of the available data.
DATA SOURCES
Data sources included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Studies published up to March 2021 were included.
REVIEW METHODS
This review was conducted using guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute for Systematic Reviews and reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 3,452 studies were identified, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Nurses with positive safety attitudes reported fewer patient falls, medication errors, pressure injuries, healthcare-associated infections, mortality, physical restraints, vascular access device reactions and higher patient satisfaction. Effective teamwork led to a reduction in adverse patient outcomes. Most included studies (N = 6) used variants of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to assess nurses' safety attitudes. Patient outcomes data were collected from four sources: coded medical records data, incident management systems, nurse perceptions of adverse events and patient perceptions of safety.
CONCLUSION
A positive safety culture in nursing units and across hospitals resulted in fewer reported adverse patient outcomes. Nurse managers can improve nurses' safety attitudes by promoting a non-punitive response to error reporting and promoting effective teamwork and good communication.
Topics: Communication; Hospitals; Humans; Nurses; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 34538027
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1063