Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Jul;66(7):1428-1436. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15384. Epub 2018 Apr 23.
To map the extent, range, and nature of research on the effectiveness, level of use, and perceptions about electronic medication administration records (eMARs) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and identify gaps in current knowledge and priority areas for future research.
Scoping review of quantitative and qualitative literature.
Literature review.
Original research relating to eMAR in LTCF was eligible for inclusion.
We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Library and performed general and advanced searches of Google to identify grey literature. Two authors independently screened for eligibility of studies. Independent reviewers extracted data regarding country of origin, design, study methods, outcomes studied, and main results in duplicate.
We identified 694 articles, of which 34 met inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 2006 and 2016 and were mostly from the United States (n=25). Twenty studies (59%) used quantitative methods, including surveys and analysis of eMAR data; 7 (21%) used qualitative methods, including interviews, focus groups, document review, and observation; and 7 (21%) used mixed methods. Three major research areas were explored: medication and medication administration error rates (n=11), eMAR benefits and challenges (n=19), and eMAR prevalence and uptake (n=15). Evidence linking eMAR use and reductions in medication errors is weak because of suboptimal study design and reporting. The majority of studies were descriptive and documented inconsistent benefits and challenges and low levels of eMAR implementation.
Further investigation is required to rigorously evaluate the effect of standalone eMAR systems on medication administration errors and patient safety, the extent of eMAR implementation, pharmacists' perceptions, and cost effectiveness of eMAR systems in LTCF.
绘制有关电子医嘱记录(eMAR)在长期护理机构(LTCF)中的有效性、使用程度和认知的研究的范围、范围和性质,并确定当前知识中的差距和未来研究的优先领域。
定量和定性文献的范围审查。
文献综述。
与 LTCF 中的 eMAR 相关的原始研究符合纳入标准。
我们系统地搜索了 MEDLINE、CINAHL、Scopus、ProQuest 和 Cochrane 图书馆,并对 Google 进行了一般和高级搜索以确定灰色文献。两位作者独立筛选研究的资格。独立评审员重复提取有关原产国、设计、研究方法、研究结果和主要结果的数据。
我们确定了 694 篇文章,其中 34 篇符合纳入标准。研究发表于 2006 年至 2016 年,主要来自美国(n=25)。20 项研究(59%)使用定量方法,包括调查和 eMAR 数据分析;7 项研究(21%)使用定性方法,包括访谈、焦点小组、文件审查和观察;7 项研究(21%)使用混合方法。探索了三个主要研究领域:药物和药物管理错误率(n=11)、eMAR 效益和挑战(n=19)以及 eMAR 流行率和采用率(n=15)。由于研究设计和报告不理想,将 eMAR 使用与减少药物错误联系起来的证据很薄弱。大多数研究是描述性的,并记录了不一致的收益和挑战以及 eMAR 实施水平低。
需要进一步调查,以严格评估独立的 eMAR 系统对药物管理错误和患者安全、eMAR 实施程度、药剂师的认知以及 LTCF 中 eMAR 系统的成本效益的影响。