Reducing interruptions during medication preparation and administration

Interruptions during general practice consultations: negative impact on physicians, and patients' indifference

BACKGROUND

Interruptions can impact consultation duration, doctors and patients' satisfaction, and quality of care provided. Although most of them seem to have a negative impact, affecting doctor-patient relationship and interfering with clinical reasoning, which increases the risk of error, there is still no evidence on their global impact on consultations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the number and duration of interruptions during general practice consultations. To compare physicians and patients' perceptions of their urgency and impact, as well as the overall satisfaction with the consultation.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of a representative sample of annual face-to-face general practice consultations at a Health Centre. Between January and March 2022, anonymous questionnaires were given to physicians and patients after consultation. We performed a descriptive and inferential statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 403 consultations were included. Physicians reported more interruptions than patients (108 vs. 87, P < 0.001). From patients' perspective those interruptions were more urgent (34.5%) compared with physicians' perspective (20.6%; P = 0.029). Patients undervalued their impact on consultations (7.1% of interruptions with a negative impact among patients vs. 24.7% among doctors; P < 0.001). Interruptions did not interfere with patients' satisfaction with consultation (P = 0.135) but were associated with lower physicians' satisfaction with consultation (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Physicians are more critical regarding consultations interruptions, being more aware of their incidence and reporting more often a negative impact, which translates into lower satisfaction with interrupted consultations. Patients devalue the occurrence of interruptions, showing no concern about their impact on security or privacy, and their satisfaction is not affected by them.

Impact of automated dispensing cabinets on dispensing errors, interruptions and pillbox preparation time

AIM

This work aimed to evaluate the impact of automated dispensing cabinets on the dispensing error rate, the number of interruptions, and pillbox preparation times.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted across 16 wards in two departments (internal medicine and surgery) of a large teaching hospital. The study compared eight wards using automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) and eight using a traditional ward stock (TWS) method. A disguised observation technique was used to compare occurrences of dispensing errors and interruptions and pillbox preparation times. The proportion of errors was calculated by dividing the number of doses with one or more errors by the total number of opportunities for error. Wards participating in the 'More time for patients' project-a Lean Management approach-were compared with those not participating. The potential severity of intercepted errors was assessed.

RESULTS

Our observations recorded 2924 opportunities for error in the preparation of 570 pillboxes by 132 nurses. We measured a significantly lower overall error rate (1.0% vs 5.0%, p=0.0001), significantly fewer interruptions per hour (3.2 vs 5.7, p=0.008), and a significantly faster mean preparation time per drug (32 s vs 40 s, p=0.0017) among ADC wards than among TWS wards, respectively. We observed a significantly lower overall error rate (1.4% vs 4.4%, p=0.0268) and a non-significantly lower number of interruptions per hour (3.8 vs 5.1, p=0.0802) among wards participating in the 'More time for patients' project.

CONCLUSIONS

A high dispensing-error rate was observed among wards using TWS methods. Wards using ADCs connected to computerised physician order entry and installed in a dedicated room had fewer dispensing errors and interruptions and their nurses prepared pillboxes faster. Wards participating in a Lean Management project had lower error rates than wards not using this approach.

Educational interventions to reduce nurse medication interruptions: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preventable harm from medicines is a global problem creating huge economic and social burden. Interruptions occur frequently in clinical environments causing medication episodes to take longer and having a cognitive cost on the nurse.

AIM

The aim of this scoping review is to identify and evaluate educational interventions that have been employed to reduce medication interruptions and improve medication safety.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for the scoping review (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Pishin and Medline) along with reference lists and grey literature searches. Articles were included if they were written in English, published between 2010 and 2020 and employed an education intervention (including bundled interventions). Databases were searched using keywords and Boolean operators.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these studies were conducted in hospital (adults n = 6, paediatric n = 1) and one study in a university with undergraduate nurses. Four studies used a combined intervention and four exclusively employed an education intervention. Five studies found a significant decrease in the number of interruptions post intervention, but one of the studies that exclusively employed an education intervention found no significant difference. Changes in the nurses' behaviour post intervention were also cited in two studies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There was a lack of exclusive education interventions, making it difficult to determine the effectiveness of education at reducing medication interruptions. This review highlights the necessity of some interruptions when performing tasks, for example, to make a nurse aware of a deteriorating patient. However, as the majority of studies used the number of interruptions to determine the effectiveness of the intervention, there is uncertainty as to whether this is the right outcome measure to use. In the future, a focus on outcome measures reflecting change in nurse behaviour may be more effective in determining the strength of an educational intervention.

Nurses' knowledge and understanding of obstacles encountered them when administering resuscitation medications: a cross-sectional study from Palestine

BACKGROUND

Medication errors (ME) are one of the most important reasons for patient morbidity and mortality, but insufficient drug knowledge among nurses is considered a major factor in drug administration errors. Furthermore, the complex and stressful systems surrounding resuscitation events increase nursing errors.

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the knowledge about resuscitation medications and understand the obstacles faced by nurses when giving resuscitation medications. Additionally, errors in the reporting of resuscitation medication administration and the reasons that prevented nurses from reporting errors were investigated.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the West Bank, Palestine. Convenient sampling was used to collect data, which was collected via a face-to-face interview questionnaire taken from a previous study. The questionnaire consisted of five parts: demographic data, knowledge of resuscitation medications (20 true/false questions), self-evaluation and causes behind not reporting ME, with suggestions to decrease ME.

RESULTS

A total of 200 nurses participated in the study. Nurses were found to have insufficient knowledge about resuscitation medications (58.6%). A high knowledge score was associated with male nurses, those working in the general ward, the cardiac care unit (CCU), the intensive care unit (ICU) and the general ward. The main obstacles nurses faced when administering resuscitation medication were the chaotic environment in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (62%), the unavailability of pharmacists for a whole day (61%), and different medications that look alike in the packaging (61%). Most nurses (70.5%) hoped to gain additional training. In our study, we found no compatibility in the definition of ME between nurses and hospitals (43.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses had insufficient knowledge of resuscitation medications. One of the obstacles nurses faced was that pharmacists should appropriately arrange medications, and nurses wanted continuous learning and additional training about resuscitation medications to decrease ME.

Effectiveness of a 'do not interrupt' vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

The use of a ‘do not interrupt’ vest during medication administration rounds is recommended but there have been no controlled randomized studies to evaluate its impact on reducing administration errors. We aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing such a vest on reducing such errors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the types and potential clinical impact of errors, the association between errors and several risk factors (such as interruptions), and nurses’ experiences.

Methods

This was a multicenter, cluster, controlled, randomized study (March–July 2017) in 29 adult units (4 hospitals). Data were collected by direct observation by trained observers. All nurses from selected units were informed. A ‘Do not interrupt’ vest was implemented in all units of the experimental group. A poster was placed at the entrance of these units to inform patients and relatives. The main outcome was the administration error rate (number of Opportunities for Error (OE), calculated as one or more errors divided by the Total Opportunities for Error (TOE) and multiplied by 100).

Results

We enrolled 178 nurses and 1346 patients during 383 medication rounds in 14 units in the experimental group and 15 units in the control group. During the intervention period, the administration error rates were 7.09% (188 OE with at least one error/2653 TOE) for the experimental group and 6.23% (210 OE with at least one error/3373 TOE) for the control group (p = 0.192). Identified risk factors (patient age, nurses’ experience, nurses’ workload, unit exposition, and interruption) were not associated with the error rate. The main error type observed for both groups was wrong dosage-form. Most errors had no clinical impact for the patient and the interruption rates were 15.04% for the experimental group and 20.75% for the control group.

Conclusions

The intervention vest had no impact on medication administration error or interruption rates. Further studies need to be performed taking into consideration the limitations of our study and other risk factors associated with other interventions, such as nurse’s training and/or a barcode system.

Trial registration

The PERMIS study protocol (V2–1, 11/04/2017) was approved by institutional review boards and ethics committees (CPP Ile de France number 2016-A00211–50, CNIL 21/03/2017, CCTIRS 11/04/2016). It is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT03062852, date of first registration: 23/02/2017).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-021-00671-7.