Medication safety for intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward: A Hierarchical Task Analysis

IF 1.6
Human factors in healthcare Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-23 DOI:10.1016/j.hfh.2022.100030
Richard S Bourne , Denham L Phipps , Jennifer K Jennings , Emma Boxall , Franki Wilson , Helen March , Darren M Ashcroft
{"title":"Medication safety for intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward: A Hierarchical Task Analysis","authors":"Richard S Bourne ,&nbsp;Denham L Phipps ,&nbsp;Jennifer K Jennings ,&nbsp;Emma Boxall ,&nbsp;Franki Wilson ,&nbsp;Helen March ,&nbsp;Darren M Ashcroft","doi":"10.1016/j.hfh.2022.100030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims and objectives</h3><p>To identify the task steps involved in intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward and their potential for human errors, and to prioritise areas to improve medication safety.</p></div><div><h3>Background</h3><p>Intensive care patients recovering to transfer to a hospital ward experience challenges to care continuity and safety, including medication safety. Medication errors are common on this interface of patient care, contributing to the risk of adverse drug events on the hospital ward and beyond. Human factors are an important consideration in these transfer-related medication errors.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A hierarchical task analysis, based on a goal of safe continuity of medication for intensive care patients on transfer to a hospital ward, was developed from local processes taken from four north of England hospital Trusts with electronic prescribing systems. The task analysis was developed and refined by the research team, incorporating documentary review of policies and procedures, and healthcare professional interviews. Failure modes for the key task steps impacting directly on patient medication safety were identified. Finally, ten intensive care healthcare professionals, individually graded each failure mode (1-5) in terms of the probability, criticality and detectability. Median grades for each parameter were used to determine an overall clinical risk score for each task step.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Ten task steps were identified (one conditional), comprising a total of 56 subordinate task steps (two conditional). Conditionality was based on integrated electronic prescribing system resource across the care interface. Thirty-four of the 56 (61%) subordinate task steps were considered by the research team to specifically involve medication continuity or safety aspects. Action omissions (operation, check, information communication) accounted for failure modes in twenty-four of the 34 (71%) task steps. Most task steps (25/34 (74%)) had one or more recovery steps, providing further safety opportunities. The medication review task for reviewing and re-introducing long-term medication had the highest cumulative risk score. The top six clinical risk scores for the failure modes involved task steps with some element of communication around medicines.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The safe continuity of medication for intensive care patients on transfer to a hospital ward is complex and prone to human error. Failure mode analysis indicated that medication review on intensive care prior to patient transfer, and communication around medication changes and plans, are particularly important risks that require addressing in any intervention developed to improve medication safety in this patient care transition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93564,"journal":{"name":"Human factors in healthcare","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100030"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772501422000276/pdfft?md5=01b7df77fd1540f4b037d5d183244b47&pid=1-s2.0-S2772501422000276-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human factors in healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772501422000276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aims and objectives

To identify the task steps involved in intensive care patients transferring to a hospital ward and their potential for human errors, and to prioritise areas to improve medication safety.

Background

Intensive care patients recovering to transfer to a hospital ward experience challenges to care continuity and safety, including medication safety. Medication errors are common on this interface of patient care, contributing to the risk of adverse drug events on the hospital ward and beyond. Human factors are an important consideration in these transfer-related medication errors.

Methods

A hierarchical task analysis, based on a goal of safe continuity of medication for intensive care patients on transfer to a hospital ward, was developed from local processes taken from four north of England hospital Trusts with electronic prescribing systems. The task analysis was developed and refined by the research team, incorporating documentary review of policies and procedures, and healthcare professional interviews. Failure modes for the key task steps impacting directly on patient medication safety were identified. Finally, ten intensive care healthcare professionals, individually graded each failure mode (1-5) in terms of the probability, criticality and detectability. Median grades for each parameter were used to determine an overall clinical risk score for each task step.

Results

Ten task steps were identified (one conditional), comprising a total of 56 subordinate task steps (two conditional). Conditionality was based on integrated electronic prescribing system resource across the care interface. Thirty-four of the 56 (61%) subordinate task steps were considered by the research team to specifically involve medication continuity or safety aspects. Action omissions (operation, check, information communication) accounted for failure modes in twenty-four of the 34 (71%) task steps. Most task steps (25/34 (74%)) had one or more recovery steps, providing further safety opportunities. The medication review task for reviewing and re-introducing long-term medication had the highest cumulative risk score. The top six clinical risk scores for the failure modes involved task steps with some element of communication around medicines.

Conclusions

The safe continuity of medication for intensive care patients on transfer to a hospital ward is complex and prone to human error. Failure mode analysis indicated that medication review on intensive care prior to patient transfer, and communication around medication changes and plans, are particularly important risks that require addressing in any intervention developed to improve medication safety in this patient care transition.

重症监护病人转到医院病房的用药安全:层次任务分析
目的和目标确定重症监护患者转移到医院病房的任务步骤及其潜在的人为错误,并优先考虑改善用药安全的领域。背景:康复的重症监护患者转移到医院病房经历了护理连续性和安全性的挑战,包括用药安全。在病人护理的这个界面上,用药错误很常见,增加了医院病房内外药物不良事件的风险。在这些转移相关的用药错误中,人为因素是一个重要的考虑因素。方法分层任务分析,基于对转移到医院病房的重症监护患者的安全连续性用药的目标,从英格兰北部四家医院信托基金的电子处方系统的当地流程开发。任务分析是由研究小组开发和完善的,其中包括对政策和程序的文件审查以及医疗保健专业人员的访谈。确定了直接影响患者用药安全的关键任务步骤的失效模式。最后,10名重症监护医疗保健专业人员根据概率、严重性和可检测性分别对每种失效模式(1-5)进行评分。每个参数的中位数评分用于确定每个任务步骤的总体临床风险评分。结果确定了10个任务步骤(1个条件步骤),共包括56个下属任务步骤(2个条件步骤)。条件是基于跨护理界面集成的电子处方系统资源。在56个(61%)次要任务步骤中,研究团队认为34个步骤具体涉及药物连续性或安全性方面。在34个任务步骤中,有24个(71%)存在动作遗漏(操作、检查、信息沟通)。大多数任务步骤(25/34(74%))有一个或多个恢复步骤,提供了进一步的安全机会。回顾和重新介绍长期用药的药物回顾任务累积风险评分最高。失败模式的前六个临床风险得分涉及任务步骤,其中包含围绕药物的一些沟通元素。结论重症监护患者转至医院病房时的安全连续性用药较为复杂,容易出现人为失误。失败模式分析表明,在重症监护患者转移前的药物审查,以及围绕药物变化和计划的沟通,是特别重要的风险,需要在任何干预措施中加以解决,以提高患者护理过渡期间的药物安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human factors in healthcare
Human factors in healthcare Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Occupational Therapy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
145 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书