Kramer Heidi S, Gibson Bryan, Livnat Yarden, Thraen Iona, Brody Abraham A, Rupper Randall
HSR&D, George E Whalen Salt Lake City VA Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt lake City, UT.
Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; IDEAS 2.0 Center George E Whalen VA Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT.
Appl Clin Inform. 2016 May 25;7(2):412-24. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2015-11-RA-0154. eCollection 2016.
Transitions in patient care pose an increased risk to patient safety. One way to reduce this risk is to ensure accurate medication reconciliation during the transition. Here we present an evaluation of an electronic medication reconciliation module we developed to reduce the transition risk in patients referred for home healthcare.
Nineteen physicians with experience in managing home health referrals were recruited to participate in this within-subjects experiment. Participants completed medication reconciliation for three clinical cases in each of two conditions. The first condition (paper-based) simulated current practice - reconciling medication discrepancies between a paper plan of care (CMS 485) and a simulated Electronic Health Record (EHR). For the second condition (electronic) participants used our medication reconciliation module, which we integrated into the simulated EHR. To evaluate the effectiveness of our medication reconciliation module, we employed repeated measures ANOVA to test the hypotheses that the module will: 1) Improve accuracy by reducing the number of unaddressed medication discrepancies, 2) Improve efficiency by reducing the reconciliation time, 3) have good perceived usability.
The improved accuracy hypothesis is supported. Participants left more discrepancies unaddressed in the paper-based condition than the electronic condition, F (1,1) = 22.3, p < 0.0001 (Paper Mean = 1.55, SD = 1.20; Electronic Mean = 0.45, SD = 0.65). However, contrary to our efficiency hypothesis, participants took the same amount of time to complete cases in the two conditions, F (1, 1) =0.007, p = 0.93 (Paper Mean = 258.7 seconds, SD = 124.4; Electronic Mean = 260.4 seconds, SD = 158.9). The usability hypothesis is supported by a composite mean ability and confidence score of 6.41 on a 7-point scale, 17 of 19 participants preferring the electronic system and an SUS rating of 86.5.
We present the evaluation of an electronic medication reconciliation module that increases detection and resolution of medication discrepancies compared to a paper-based process. Further work to integrate medication reconciliation within an electronic medical record is warranted.
患者护理的交接会增加患者安全风险。降低这种风险的一种方法是确保在交接过程中进行准确的用药核对。在此,我们展示了对我们开发的一个电子用药核对模块的评估,该模块旨在降低转介至家庭医疗护理的患者的交接风险。
招募了19名有管理家庭健康转介经验的医生参与这个被试内实验。参与者在两种情况下分别完成三个临床病例的用药核对。第一种情况(纸质版)模拟当前做法——核对纸质护理计划(CMS 485)和模拟电子健康记录(EHR)之间的用药差异。对于第二种情况(电子版),参与者使用我们的用药核对模块,该模块已集成到模拟电子健康记录中。为了评估我们的用药核对模块的有效性,我们采用重复测量方差分析来检验以下假设:1)通过减少未解决的用药差异数量来提高准确性,2)通过减少核对时间来提高效率,3)具有良好的感知可用性。
提高准确性的假设得到支持。与电子版情况相比,参与者在纸质版情况下未解决的差异更多,F(1,1)=22.3,p<0.0001(纸质版均值 = 1.55,标准差 = 1.20;电子版均值 = 0.45,标准差 = 0.65)。然而,与我们的效率假设相反,参与者在两种情况下完成病例所花费的时间相同,F(1,1)=0.007,p = 0.93(纸质版均值 = 258.7秒,标准差 = 124.4;电子版均值 = 260.4秒,标准差 = 本文链接:https://www.51test.net/show/11074727.html 158.9)。可用性假设得到支持,综合平均能力和信心得分在7分制下为6.41,19名参与者中有17名更喜欢电子系统,系统可用性量表(SUS)评分为86.5。
我们展示了对一个电子用药核对模块的评估,与基于纸质的流程相比,该模块增加了用药差异的检测和解决。有必要进一步开展工作,将用药核对集成到电子病历中。