RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: A mixed-methods randomised user testing study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.07.01.24309757
DO 10.1101/2024.07.01.24309757
A1 Feather, Calandra
A1 Appelbaum, Nicholas
A1 Clarke, Jonathan
A1 Darzi, Ara
A1 Franklin, Bryony
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/02/2024.07.01.24309757.abstract
AB Background Medication errors are the leading cause of preventable harm in healthcare. Despite proliferation of medication-related clinical decision support systems (CDSS), current systems have limitations. We therefore developed an indication-based prescribing tool. This performs dose calculations using an underlying formulary and provides patient-specific dosing recommendations. Objectives were to compare the incidence and types of erroneous medication orders, time to prescribe (TTP), and perceived workload using the NASA task load index (TLX), in simulated prescribing tasks with and without this intervention. We also sought to identify workflow steps most vulnerable to error and gain participant feedback.Methods A simulated, randomised, cross-over exploratory study was conducted at a London NHS Trust. Participants completed five simulated prescribing tasks with, and five without, the intervention. Data collection methods comprised direct observation of prescribing tasks, self-reported task load and semi-structured interviews. A concurrent triangulation design combined quantitative and qualitative data.Results 24 participants completed a total of 240 medication orders. The intervention was associated with fewer prescribing errors (6.6% of 120 medications) compared to standard practice (28.3%; relative risk reduction 76.5% p < 0.01), a shorter TTP and lower overall NASA TLX scores (p < 0.01). Control arm workflow vulnerabilities included failures in identifying correct doses, applying maximum dose limits, and calculating patient-specific dosages. Intervention arm errors primarily stemmed from misidentifying patient-specific information from the medication scenario. Thematic analysis of participant interviews identified six themes: Navigating trust and familiarity, addressing challenges and suggestions for improvement, integration of local guidelines and existing CDSS, intervention endorsement, ‘search by indication’ and targeting specific patient and staff groups.Conclusion The intervention represents a promising advancement in medication safety, with implications for enhancing patient safety and efficiency. Further real-world evaluation and development of the system to meet the needs of more diverse patient groups, users and healthcare settings is now required.What is already known on this topic?Indication-based prescribing has the potential to improve prescribing efficiency and patient safety.What this study adds An indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool used in a simulation setting reduced the incidence of prescribing errors and the time to prescribe compared with standard practice.This study provides cumulative validity to the potential benefits of indication-based prescribing tools.How this study might affect research, practice or policy Future evaluation of such tools in the real-world clinical setting is now required to identify the impact of such tools on clinical outcomes and prescribing workflow.Competing Interest StatementNA is a director of and shareholder in Dosium Holdings Ltd, a company developing medication-related clinical decision software for use in electronic prescribing systems. CF is an employee of and shareholder in Dosium Holdings Ltd. AD is also shareholder in Dosium Holdings Ltd. BDF is an editor at BMJ Quality and Safety and has previously supervised a PhD student who was part funded by Cerner.Clinical TrialNCT05493072Funding StatementInfrastructure support and funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (125-20013) and the NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC-2016-004)Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study received HRA approval (IRAS project ID: 315652, REC reference 22/HRA/2896).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors