确保急症护理用药安全的干预措施:综述。

Q3 Medicine
Hanan Khalil, Kathryn Kynoch, Sonia Hines
{"title":"确保急症护理用药安全的干预措施:综述。","authors":"Hanan Khalil, Kathryn Kynoch, Sonia Hines","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication errors are one of the leading avoidable sources of harm to hospital patients. In hospitals, a range of interventions have been used to reduce the risk of errors at each of the points they may occur, such as prescription, dispensing and/or administration. Systematic reviews have been conducted on many of these interventions; however, it is difficult to compare the clinical utility of any of the separate interventions without the use of a rigorous umbrella review methodology.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesize the evidence from all systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness of medication safety interventions, in comparison to any or no comparator, for preventing medication errors, medication-related harms and death in acute care patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The review considered quantitative systematic reviews with participants who were healthcare workers involved in prescribing, dispensing or administering medications. These healthcare workers were registered nurses, enrolled or licensed vocational nurses, midwives, pharmacists or medical doctors. Interventions of interest were those designed to prevent medication error in acute care settings. Eligible systematic reviews reported medication errors, medication-related harms and medication-related death as measured by error rates, numbers of adverse events and numbers of medication-related deaths. To qualify for inclusion, systematic reviews needed to provide a clearly articulated and comprehensive search strategy, and evidence of critical appraisal of the included studies using a standardized tool. Systematic reviews published in English since 2007 were included until present (March 2020). We searched a range of databases such MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library for potentially eligible reviews. Identified citations were screened by two reviewers working independently. Potentially eligible articles were retrieved and assessed against the inclusion criteria and those meeting the criteria were then critically appraised using the JBI SUMARI instrument for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews and research syntheses. A predetermined quality threshold was used to exclude studies based on their reported methods. Following critical appraisal, data were extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers using the relevant instrument in JBI SUMARI. Extracted findings were synthesized narratively and presented in tables to illustrate the reported outcomes for each intervention. The strength of the evidence for each intervention was indicated using 'traffic light' colors: green for effective interventions, amber for interventions with no evidence of an effect and red for interventions less effective than the comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. Most reviews did not report the number of participants in their included studies. Interventions targeted pharmacists, medical doctors, medical students and nurses, or were nonspecific about the participants. The majority of included reviews examined single interventions. All reviews were published and in English. Four interventions, medication administration education, medication reconciliation or review, specialist pharmacists' roles and physical or design modifications, reported effectiveness in reducing errors; however, heterogeneity between the included studies in these reviews was high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For some interventions, there are strong indications of effectiveness in reducing medication errors in the inpatient setting. Government initiatives, policy makers and practitioners interested in improving medication safety are encouraged to adopt those interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55996,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","volume":"18 2","pages":"188-211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions to ensure medication safety in acute care: an umbrella review.\",\"authors\":\"Hanan Khalil, Kathryn Kynoch, Sonia Hines\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication errors are one of the leading avoidable sources of harm to hospital patients. In hospitals, a range of interventions have been used to reduce the risk of errors at each of the points they may occur, such as prescription, dispensing and/or administration. Systematic reviews have been conducted on many of these interventions; however, it is difficult to compare the clinical utility of any of the separate interventions without the use of a rigorous umbrella review methodology.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesize the evidence from all systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness of medication safety interventions, in comparison to any or no comparator, for preventing medication errors, medication-related harms and death in acute care patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The review considered quantitative systematic reviews with participants who were healthcare workers involved in prescribing, dispensing or administering medications. These healthcare workers were registered nurses, enrolled or licensed vocational nurses, midwives, pharmacists or medical doctors. Interventions of interest were those designed to prevent medication error in acute care settings. Eligible systematic reviews reported medication errors, medication-related harms and medication-related death as measured by error rates, numbers of adverse events and numbers of medication-related deaths. To qualify for inclusion, systematic reviews needed to provide a clearly articulated and comprehensive search strategy, and evidence of critical appraisal of the included studies using a standardized tool. Systematic reviews published in English since 2007 were included until present (March 2020). We searched a range of databases such MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library for potentially eligible reviews. Identified citations were screened by two reviewers working independently. Potentially eligible articles were retrieved and assessed against the inclusion criteria and those meeting the criteria were then critically appraised using the JBI SUMARI instrument for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews and research syntheses. A predetermined quality threshold was used to exclude studies based on their reported methods. Following critical appraisal, data were extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers using the relevant instrument in JBI SUMARI. Extracted findings were synthesized narratively and presented in tables to illustrate the reported outcomes for each intervention. The strength of the evidence for each intervention was indicated using 'traffic light' colors: green for effective interventions, amber for interventions with no evidence of an effect and red for interventions less effective than the comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. Most reviews did not report the number of participants in their included studies. Interventions targeted pharmacists, medical doctors, medical students and nurses, or were nonspecific about the participants. The majority of included reviews examined single interventions. All reviews were published and in English. Four interventions, medication administration education, medication reconciliation or review, specialist pharmacists' roles and physical or design modifications, reported effectiveness in reducing errors; however, heterogeneity between the included studies in these reviews was high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For some interventions, there are strong indications of effectiveness in reducing medication errors in the inpatient setting. Government initiatives, policy makers and practitioners interested in improving medication safety are encouraged to adopt those interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"188-211\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000232\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:用药错误是对医院病人造成伤害的主要可避免来源之一。医院采用了一系列干预措施,以降低在处方、配药和/或用药等各个环节发生错误的风险。已对其中许多干预措施进行了系统综述;但是,如果不采用严格的总体综述方法,就很难比较任何单独干预措施的临床效用:本综述旨在综合所有系统性综述中的证据,这些综述调查了用药安全干预措施对急诊患者预防用药错误、用药相关伤害和死亡的有效性,并与任何或无参照物的干预措施进行了比较:综述考虑了定量系统性综述,参与者为参与处方、配药或用药的医护人员。这些医护人员包括注册护士、注册或持证职业护士、助产士、药剂师或医生。我们感兴趣的干预措施是那些旨在预防急症护理环境中用药错误的干预措施。符合条件的系统性综述报告了用药错误、与用药相关的伤害和与用药相关的死亡,以错误率、不良事件数量和与用药相关的死亡数量来衡量。要获得纳入资格,系统性综述需要提供清晰明确、全面的检索策略,以及使用标准化工具对纳入研究进行批判性评估的证据。我们纳入了自 2007 年至今(2020 年 3 月)用英语发表的系统性综述。我们检索了一系列数据库,如 MEDLINE、CINAHL、Web of Science、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆,以查找可能符合条件的综述。确定的引文由两名独立工作的审稿人进行筛选。检索出可能符合条件的文章并根据纳入标准进行评估,然后使用 JBI SUMARI 工具对符合标准的文章进行严格评估,该工具用于评估系统性综述和研究综述的方法学质量。根据研究报告的方法,采用预先确定的质量阈值来排除研究。严格评估后,由两名独立评审员使用 JBI SUMARI 中的相关工具从纳入的研究中提取数据。提取的结果以叙述的方式进行了综合,并以表格的形式展示了每种干预措施的报告结果。每项干预措施的证据强度用 "交通信号灯 "的颜色表示:绿色代表有效的干预措施,琥珀色代表没有证据表明有效果的干预措施,红色代表干预措施的效果低于对比效果:本综述共纳入 23 篇系统综述。大多数综述没有报告所纳入研究的参与者人数。干预的对象包括药剂师、医生、医科学生和护士,或者没有明确指出参与者。大部分纳入的综述研究了单一的干预措施。所有综述均以英语发表。四项干预措施,即药物管理教育、药物调节或审查、专业药剂师的作用以及物理或设计改造,均报告了减少错误的有效性;然而,这些综述中纳入的研究之间的异质性很高:结论:对于某些干预措施,有强烈的迹象表明其能有效减少住院环境中的用药错误。我们鼓励对改善用药安全感兴趣的政府倡议、政策制定者和从业人员采用这些干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interventions to ensure medication safety in acute care: an umbrella review.

Background: Medication errors are one of the leading avoidable sources of harm to hospital patients. In hospitals, a range of interventions have been used to reduce the risk of errors at each of the points they may occur, such as prescription, dispensing and/or administration. Systematic reviews have been conducted on many of these interventions; however, it is difficult to compare the clinical utility of any of the separate interventions without the use of a rigorous umbrella review methodology.

Objectives: The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesize the evidence from all systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness of medication safety interventions, in comparison to any or no comparator, for preventing medication errors, medication-related harms and death in acute care patients.

Method: The review considered quantitative systematic reviews with participants who were healthcare workers involved in prescribing, dispensing or administering medications. These healthcare workers were registered nurses, enrolled or licensed vocational nurses, midwives, pharmacists or medical doctors. Interventions of interest were those designed to prevent medication error in acute care settings. Eligible systematic reviews reported medication errors, medication-related harms and medication-related death as measured by error rates, numbers of adverse events and numbers of medication-related deaths. To qualify for inclusion, systematic reviews needed to provide a clearly articulated and comprehensive search strategy, and evidence of critical appraisal of the included studies using a standardized tool. Systematic reviews published in English since 2007 were included until present (March 2020). We searched a range of databases such MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library for potentially eligible reviews. Identified citations were screened by two reviewers working independently. Potentially eligible articles were retrieved and assessed against the inclusion criteria and those meeting the criteria were then critically appraised using the JBI SUMARI instrument for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews and research syntheses. A predetermined quality threshold was used to exclude studies based on their reported methods. Following critical appraisal, data were extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers using the relevant instrument in JBI SUMARI. Extracted findings were synthesized narratively and presented in tables to illustrate the reported outcomes for each intervention. The strength of the evidence for each intervention was indicated using 'traffic light' colors: green for effective interventions, amber for interventions with no evidence of an effect and red for interventions less effective than the comparison.

Results: A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. Most reviews did not report the number of participants in their included studies. Interventions targeted pharmacists, medical doctors, medical students and nurses, or were nonspecific about the participants. The majority of included reviews examined single interventions. All reviews were published and in English. Four interventions, medication administration education, medication reconciliation or review, specialist pharmacists' roles and physical or design modifications, reported effectiveness in reducing errors; however, heterogeneity between the included studies in these reviews was high.

Conclusion: For some interventions, there are strong indications of effectiveness in reducing medication errors in the inpatient setting. Government initiatives, policy makers and practitioners interested in improving medication safety are encouraged to adopt those interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: ​​The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare is the official journal of the Joanna Briggs Institute. It is a fully refereed journal that publishes manuscripts relating to evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice. It publishes papers containing reliable evidence to assist health professionals in their evaluation and decision-making, and to inform health professionals, students and researchers of outcomes, debates and developments in evidence-based medicine and healthcare. ​ The journal provides a unique home for publication of systematic reviews (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence) and implementation projects including the synthesis, transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice. Original scholarly work relating to the synthesis (translation science), transfer (distribution) and utilization (implementation science and evaluation) of evidence to inform multidisciplinary healthcare practice is considered for publication. The journal also publishes original scholarly commentary pieces relating to the generation and synthesis of evidence for practice and quality improvement, the use and evaluation of evidence in practice, and the process of conducting systematic reviews (methodology) which covers quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, economic, scoping and prevalence methods. In addition, the journal’s content includes implementation projects including the transfer and utilisation of evidence in clinical practice as well as providing a forum for the debate of issues surrounding evidence-based healthcare.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信