Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundDouble checking medication administration in hospitals is often standard practice, particularly for high-risk drugs, yet its effectiveness in reducing medication administration errors (MAEs) and improving patient outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating evidence of the effectiveness of double checking to reduce MAEs.MethodsFive databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Ovid@Journals, OpenGrey) were searched for studies evaluating the use and effectiveness of double checking on reducing medication administration errors in a hospital setting. Included studies were required to report any of three outcome measures: an effect estimate such as a risk ratio or risk difference representing the association between double checking and MAEs, or between double checking and patient harm; or a rate representing adherence to the hospital’s double checking policy.ResultsThirteen studies were identified, including 10 studies using an observational study design, two randomised controlled trials and one randomised trial in a simulated setting. Studies included both paediatric and adult inpatient populations and varied considerably in quality. Among three good quality studies, only one showed a significant association between double checking and a reduction in MAEs, another showed no association, and the third study reported only adherence rates. No studies investigated changes in medication-related harm associated with double checking. Reported double checking adherence rates ranged from 52% to 97% of administrations. Only three studies reported if and how independent and primed double checking were differentiated.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence that double versus single checking of medication administration is associated with lower rates of MAEs or reduced harm. Most comparative studies fail to define or investigate the level of adherence to independent double checking, further limiting conclusions regarding effectiveness in error prevention. Higher-quality studies are needed to determine if, and in what context (eg, drug type, setting), double checking produces sufficient benefits in patient safety to warrant the considerable resources required. CRD42018103436.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Serious lapses in patient care result from failure to follow-up test results. OBJECTIVE To systematically review evidence quantifying the extent of failure to follow-up test results and the impact for ambulatory patients. DATA SOURCES Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Inspec and the Cochrane Database were searched for English-language literature from 1995 to 2010. STUDY SELECTION Studies which provided documented quantitative evidence of the number of tests not followed up for patients attending ambulatory settings including: outpatient clinics, academic medical or community health centres, or primary care practices. DATA EXTRACTION Four reviewers independently screened 768 articles. RESULTS Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and reported wide variation in the extent of tests not followed-up: 6.8% (79/1163) to 62% (125/202) for laboratory tests; 1.0% (4/395) to 35.7% (45/126) for radiology. The impact on patient outcomes included missed cancer diagnoses. Test management practices varied between settings with many individuals involved in the process. There were few guidelines regarding responsibility for patient notification and follow-up. Quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of electronic test management systems was limited although there was a general trend towards improved test follow-up when electronic systems were used. LIMITATIONS Most studies used medical record reviews; hence evidence of follow-up action relied upon documentation in the medical record. All studies were conducted in the US so care should be taken in generalising findings to other countries. CONCLUSIONS Failure to follow-up test results is an important safety concern which requires urgent attention. Solutions should be multifaceted and include: policies relating to responsibility, timing and process of notification; integrated information and communication technologies facilitating communication; and consideration of the multidisciplinary nature of the process and the role of the patient. It is essential that evaluations of interventions are undertaken and solutions integrated into the work and context of ambulatory care delivery.

BackgroundIntravenous medication administrations have a high incidence of error but there is limited evidence of associated factors or error severity.ObjectiveTo measure the frequency, type and severity of intravenous administration errors in hospitals and the associations between errors, procedural failures and nurse experience.MethodsProspective observational study of 107 nurses preparing and administering 568 intravenous medications on six wards across two teaching hospitals. Procedural failures (eg, checking patient identification) and clinical intravenous errors (eg, wrong intravenous administration rate) were identified and categorised by severity.ResultsOf 568 intravenous administrations, 69.7% (n=396; 95% CI 65.9 to 73.5) had at least one clinical error and 25.5% (95% CI 21.2 to 29.8) of these were serious. Four error types (wrong intravenous rate, mixture, volume, and drug incompatibility) accounted for 91.7% of errors. Wrong rate was the most frequent and accounted for 95 of 101 serious errors. Error rates and severity decreased with clinical experience. Each year of experience, up to 6 years, reduced the risk of error by 10.9% and serious error by 18.5%. Administration by bolus was associated with a 312% increased risk of error. Patient identification was only checked in 47.9% of administrations but was associated with a 56% reduction in intravenous error risk.ConclusionsIntravenous administrations have a higher risk and severity of error than other medication administrations. A significant proportion of errors suggest skill and knowledge deficiencies, with errors and severity reducing as clinical experience increases. A proportion of errors are also associated with routine violations which are likely to be learnt workplace behaviours. Both areas suggest specific targets for intervention.

Background Communities of Practice (CoPs) are promoted in the healthcare sector as a means of generating and sharing knowledge and improving organisational performance. However CoPs vary considerably in the way they are structured and operate in the sector. If CoPs are to be cultivated to benefit healthcare organisations, there is a need to examine and understand their application to date. To this end, a systematic review of the literature on CoPs was conducted, to examine how and why CoPs have been established and whether they have been shown to improve healthcare practice. Methods Peer-reviewed empirical research papers on CoPs in the healthcare sector were identified by searching electronic health-databases. Information on the purpose of establishing CoPs, their composition, methods by which members communicate and share information or knowledge, and research methods used to examine effectiveness was extracted and reviewed. Also examined was evidence of whether or not CoPs led to a change in healthcare practice. Results Thirty-one primary research papers and two systematic reviews were identified and reviewed in detail. There was a trend from descriptive to evaluative research. The focus of CoPs in earlier publications was on learning and exchanging information and knowledge, whereas in more recently published research, CoPs were used more as a tool to improve clinical practice and to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practice. Means by which members communicated with each other varied, but in none of the primary research studies was the method of communication examined in terms of the CoP achieving its objectives. Researchers are increasing their efforts to assess the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, however the interventions have been complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to directly attribute the change to the CoP. Conclusions In keeping with Wenger and colleagues' description, CoPs in the healthcare sector vary in form and purpose. While researchers are increasing their efforts to examine the impact of CoPs in healthcare, cultivating CoPs to improve healthcare performance requires a greater understanding of how to establish and support CoPs to maximise their potential to improve healthcare.

Background Time nurses spend with patients is associated with improved patient outcomes, reduced errors, and patient and nurse satisfaction. Few studies have measured how nurses distribute their time across tasks. We aimed to quantify how nurses distribute their time across tasks, with patients, in individual tasks, and engagement with other health care providers; and how work patterns changed over a two year period. Methods Prospective observational study of 57 nurses for 191.3 hours (109.8 hours in 2005/2006 and 81.5 in 2008), on two wards in a teaching hospital in Australia. The validated Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) method was applied. Proportions of time in 10 categories of work, average time per task, time with patients and others, information tools used, and rates of interruptions and multi-tasking were calculated. Results Nurses spent 37.0%[95%CI: 34.5, 39.3] of their time with patients, which did not change in year 3 [35.7%; 95%CI: 33.3, 38.0]. Direct care, indirect care, medication tasks and professional communication together consumed 76.4% of nurses' time in year 1 and 81.0% in year 3. Time on direct and indirect care increased significantly (respectively 20.4% to 24.8%, P < 0.01;13.0% to 16.1%, P < 0.01). Proportion of time on medication tasks (19.0%) did not change. Time in professional communication declined (24.0% to 19.2%, P < 0.05). Nurses completed an average of 72.3 tasks per hour, with a mean task length of 55 seconds. Interruptions arose at an average rate of two per hour, but medication tasks incurred 27% of all interruptions. In 25% of medication tasks nurses multi-tasked. Between years 1 and 3 nurses spent more time alone, from 27.5%[95%CI 24.5, 30.6] to 39.4%[34.9, 43.9]. Time with health professionals other than nurses was low and did not change. Conclusions Nurses spent around 37% of their time with patients which did not change. Work patterns were increasingly fragmented with rapid changes between tasks of short length. Interruptions were modest but their substantial over-representation among medication tasks raises potential safety concerns. There was no evidence of an increase in team-based, multi-disciplinary care. Over time nurses spent significantly less time talking with colleagues and more time alone.

Antibiotic misuse is a key contributor to antimicrobial resistance and a concern in long-term aged care facilities (LTCFs). Our objectives were to: i) summarise key indicators of systemic antibiotic use and appropriateness of use, and ii) examine temporal and regional variations in antibiotic use, in LTCFs (PROSPERO registration CRD42018107125). Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies published between 1990-2021 reporting antibiotic use rates in LTCFs. Random effects meta-analysis provided pooled estimates of antibiotic use rates (percentage of residents on an antibiotic on a single day [point prevalence] and over 12 months [period prevalence]; percentage of appropriate prescriptions). Meta-regression examined associations between antibiotic use, year of measurement and region. A total of 90 articles representing 78 studies from 39 countries with data between 1985-2019 were included. Pooled estimates of point prevalence and 12-month period prevalence were 5.2% (95% CI: 3.3-7.9; n = 523,171) and 62.0% (95% CI: 54.0-69.3; n = 946,127), respectively. Point prevalence varied significantly between regions (Q = 224.1, df = 7, p<0.001), and ranged from 2.4% (95% CI: 1.9-2.7) in Eastern Europe to 9.0% in the British Isles (95% CI: 7.6-10.5) and Northern Europe (95% CI: 7.7-10.5). Twelve-month period prevalence varied significantly between regions (Q = 15.1, df = 3, p = 0.002) and ranged from 53.9% (95% CI: 48.3-59.4) in the British Isles to 68.3% (95% CI: 63.6-72.7) in Australia. Meta-regression found no association between year of measurement and antibiotic use prevalence. The pooled estimate of the percentage of appropriate antibiotic prescriptions was 28.5% (95% CI: 10.3-58.0; n = 17,245) as assessed by the McGeer criteria. Year of measurement was associated with decreasing appropriateness of antibiotic use over time (OR:0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91). The most frequently used antibiotic classes were penicillins (n = 44 studies), cephalosporins (n = 36), sulphonamides/trimethoprim (n = 31), and quinolones (n = 28). Coordinated efforts focusing on LTCFs are required to address antibiotic misuse in LTCFs. Our analysis provides overall baseline and regional estimates for future monitoring of antibiotic use in LTCFs.

Background Telephone triage and advice services (TTAS) are increasingly being implemented around the world. These services allow people to speak to a nurse or general practitioner over the telephone and receive assessment and healthcare advice. There is an existing body of research on the topic of TTAS, however the diffuseness of the evidence base makes it difficult to identify key lessons that are consistent across the literature. Systematic reviews represent the highest level of evidence synthesis. We aimed to undertake an overview of such reviews to determine the scope, consistency and generalisability of findings in relation to the governance, safety and quality of TTAS. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for English language systematic reviews focused on key governance, quality and safety findings related to telephone based triage and advice services, published since 1990. The search was undertaken by three researchers who reached consensus on all included systematic reviews. An appraisal of the methodological quality of the systematic reviews was independently undertaken by two researchers using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Results Ten systematic reviews from a potential 291 results were selected for inclusion. TTAS was examined either alone, or as part of a primary care service model or intervention designed to improve primary care. Evidence of TTAS performance was reported across nine key indicators – access, appropriateness, compliance, patient satisfaction, cost, safety, health service utilisation, physician workload and clinical outcomes. Patient satisfaction with TTAS was generally high and there is some consistency of evidence of the ability of TTAS to reduce clinical workload. Measures of the safety of TTAS tended to show that there is no major difference between TTAS and traditional care. Conclusions Taken as a whole, current evidence does not provide definitive answers to questions about the quality of care provided, access and equity of the service, its costs and outcomes. The available evidence also suggests that there are many interactional factors (e.g., relationship with other health service providers) which can impact on measures of performance, and also affect the external validity of the research findings.

Active engagement in leisure activities has positive effects on individuals' health outcomes and social functioning; however, there is limited understanding of the link between participation in leisure activities, particularly non-exercise activities, and falls in older adults. This study aimed to determine the relationship between participation in leisure activities and the incidence of falls, and the variation of this relationship by dementia status in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). A retrospective longitudinal cohort study utilising routinely collected data (January 2021-August 2022) from 25 RACFs in Sydney, Australia, was conducted. The cohort included 3,024 older permanent residents (1,493 with dementia and 1,531 without) aged ≥65 and with a stay of ≥1 week. The level of participation in leisure activities was measured using the number of leisure activities per 1,000 resident days and divided into quartiles. Outcome measures were the incidence rate of all falls and injurious falls (i.e., number of falls per 1,000 resident days). We used multilevel negative binary regression to examine the relationship between leisure participation and fall incidence. For the whole sample, leisure participation was significantly inversely associated with the incidence rate of all falls and injurious falls. For example, residents in the high leisure participation group were 26% less likely to experience a fall compared to those in the low leisure participation group after controlling for confounders (incidence rate ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval = 0.60, 0.91). Such inverse relationship was observed in both exercise and non-exercise activities and was stronger among residents without dementia. Leisure participation is associated with a lower rate of falls, a key quality indicator by which RACFs are benchmarked and funded in Australia and many other countries. More recognition and attention are needed for the currently underfunded leisure activities in RACFs in future funding arrangement.

Background Unprofessional behaviour (UB) between staff encompasses various behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment, and bullying. UB is pervasive in acute healthcare settings and disproportionately impacts minoritised staff. UB has detrimental effects on staff wellbeing, patient safety and organisational resources. While interventions have been implemented to mitigate UB, there is limited understanding of how and why they may work and for whom. Methods This study utilised a realist review methodology with stakeholder input to improve understanding of these complex context-dependent interventions. Initial programme theories were formulated drawing upon scoping searches and reports known to the study team. Purposive systematic searches were conducted to gather grey and published global literature from databases. Documents were selected if relevant to UB in acute care settings while considering rigour and relevance. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. Results Of 2977 deduplicated records, 148 full text reports were included with 42 reports describing interventions to address UB in acute healthcare settings. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour change strategies and were categorised into five types of intervention (1) single session (i.e. one off); (2) multiple session; (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training sessions plus a code of conduct); (4) professional accountability and reporting programmes and; (5) structured culture change interventions. We formulated 55 context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how, why, and when these interventions work. We identified twelve key dynamics to consider in intervention design, including importance of addressing systemic contributors, rebuilding trust in managers, and promoting a psychologically safe culture; fifteen implementation principles were identified to address these dynamics. Conclusions Interventions to address UB are still at an early stage of development, and their effectiveness to reduce UB and improve patient safety is unclear. Future interventions should incorporate knowledge from behavioural and implementation science to affect behaviour change; draw on multiple concurrent strategies to address systemic contributors to UB; and consider the undue burden of UB on minoritised groups. Study registration This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

Background Unprofessional behaviours (UB) between healthcare staff are rife in global healthcare systems, negatively impacting staff wellbeing, patient safety and care quality. Drivers of UBs include organisational, situational, team, and leadership issues which interact in complex ways. An improved understanding of these factors and their interactions would enable future interventions to better target these drivers of UB. Methods A realist review following RAMESES guidelines was undertaken with stakeholder input. Initial theories were formulated drawing on reports known to the study team and scoping searches. A systematic search of databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE and HMIC was performed to identify literature for theory refinement. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. Results We included 81 reports (papers) from 2,977 deduplicated records of grey and academic reports, and 28 via Google, stakeholders, and team members, yielding a total of 109 reports. Five categories of contributor were formulated: (1) workplace disempowerment; (2) harmful workplace processes and cultures; (3) inhibited social cohesion; (4) reduced ability to speak up; and (5) lack of manager awareness and urgency. These resulted in direct increases to UB, reduced ability of staff to cope, and reduced ability to report, challenge or address UB. Twenty-three theories were developed to explain how these contributors work and interact, and how their outcomes differ across diverse staff groups. Staff most at risk of UB include women, new staff, staff with disabilities, and staff from minoritised groups. UB negatively impacted patient safety by impairing concentration, communication, ability to learn, confidence, and interpersonal trust. Conclusion Existing research has focused primarily on individual characteristics, but these are inconsistent, difficult to address, and can be used to deflect organisational responsibility. We present a comprehensive programme theory furthering understanding of contributors to UB, how they work and why, how they interact, whom they affect, and how patient safety is impacted. More research is needed to understand how and why minoritised staff are disproportionately affected by UB. Study registration This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .