Dataset Information

Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To implement and assess a rules based computerised prescribing system with the aim of improving the safety of prescriptions and the administration of drugs.

Design

Analysis of performance of computerised system plus questionnaire survey of users.

Setting

64 bed renal unit in a teaching hospital.

Intervention

: Introduction of the system into routine clinical use.

Main outcome measures

Number of attempted prescriptions cancelled by the system; proportion of warning messages overridden; users' comparisons of the system with conventional procedures.

Results

Between October 1998 and August 1999 the system cancelled 58 (0.07%) out of 87 789 prescriptions on the grounds of clinical safety. In addition, 427 (57%) attempted prescriptions generating high level warnings and 1257 (8%) generating low level warnings were not completed. In a user survey 82% (31/38) of doctors and nurses considered the system to be an improvement on conventional procedures.

Conclusions

The system has contributed to safety and patient care. All prescriptions are complete and legible, and transcription errors have been eliminated. The system assists clinicians when they are writing a prescription by making available information on patients. The system supports clinical decision making and has been well received by doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

SUBMITTER: Nightingale PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27317 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study.

Nightingale P G PG Adu D D Richards N T NT Peters M M

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20000301 7237

<h4>Objectives</h4>To implement and assess a rules based computerised prescribing system with the aim of improving the safety of prescriptions and the administration of drugs.<h4>Design</h4>Analysis of performance of computerised system plus questionnaire survey of users.<h4>Setting</h4>64 bed renal unit in a teaching hospital.<h4>Intervention</h4>: Introduction of the system into routine clinical use.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Number of attempted prescriptions cancelled by the system; propor ...[more]

PMID: 10720357

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe importance of accurately costing implementation strategies is increasingly recognised within the field of implementation science. However, there is a lack of methodological guidance for costing implementation, particularly within digital health settings. This study reports on a systematic review of costing analyses conducted alongside implementation of hospital-based computerised decision support systems.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and selected original research studies that were conducted in a hospital setting, examined the implementation of a computerised decision support systems and reported implementation costs. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Framework was used to identify and categorise implementation strategies into clusters. A previously published costing framework was applied to describe the methods used to measure and value implementation costs. The reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.ResultsTitles and abstracts of 1836 articles were screened, with nine articles eligible for inclusion in the review. Implementation costs were most frequently reported under the 'evaluative and iterative strategies' cluster, followed by 'provide interactive assistance'. Labour was the largest implementation-related cost in the included papers, irrespective of implementation strategy. Other reported costs included consumables, durable assets and physical space, which was mostly associated with stakeholder training. The methods used to cost implementation were often unclear. There was variation across studies in the overall quality of reporting.ConclusionsA relatively small number of papers have described computerised decision support systems implementation costs, and the methods used to measure and value these costs were not well reported. Priorities for future research should include establishing consistent terminology and appropriate methods for estimating and reporting on implementation costs.Trial registrationThe review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021272948).

Project description:BackgroundTrials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care.MethodsWe drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified 'guiding principles' with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals.ResultsFocus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an 'implementation support' website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts).ConclusionsWe used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the budget impact of implementing multidisciplinary complex pain clinics (MCPCs) for Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients living with complex chronic pain and substance use disorder comorbidities who are on risky opioid regimens.Data sources and study settingWe measured implementation costs for three MCPCs over 2 years using micro-costing methods. Intervention and downstream costs were obtained from the VA Managerial Cost Accounting System from 2 years prior to 2 years after opening of MCPCs.Study designStaff at the three VA sites implementing MCPCs were supported by Implementation Facilitation. The intervention cohort was patients at MCPC sites who received treatment based on their history of chronic pain and risky opioid use. Intervention costs and downstream costs were estimated with a quasi-experimental study design using a propensity score-weighted difference-in-difference approach. The healthcare utilization costs of treated patients were compared with a control group having clinically similar characteristics and undergoing the standard route of care at neighboring VA medical centers. Cancer and hospice patients were excluded.Data collection/extraction methodsActivity-based costing data acquired from MCPC sites were used to estimate implementation costs. Intervention and downstream costs were extracted from VA administrative data.Principal findingsAverage Implementation Facilitation costs ranged from $380 to $640 per month for each site. Upon opening of three MCPCs, average intervention costs per patient were significantly higher than the control group at two intervention sites. Downstream costs were significantly higher at only one of three intervention sites. Site-level differences were due to variation in inpatient costs, with some confounding likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This evidence suggests that necessary start-up investments are required to initiate MCPCs, with allocations of funds needed for implementation, intervention, and downstream costs.ConclusionsIncorporating implementation, intervention, and downstream costs in this evaluation provides a thorough budget impact analysis, which decision-makers may use when considering whether to expand effective programming.

Project description:IntroductionNurse and pharmacist independent prescribers manage patients with respiratory tract infections and are responsible for around 8% of all primary care antibiotic prescriptions. A range of factors influence the prescribing behaviour of these professionals, however, there are no interventions available specifically to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing behaviour by these groups. The aims of this paper are to describe (1) the development of an intervention to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing by nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers and (2) an acceptability and feasibility study designed to test its implementation with these prescribers. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: Development of intervention: a three-stage, eight-step method was used to identify relevant determinants of behaviour change and intervention components based on the Behaviour Change Wheel. The intervention is an online resource comprising underpinning knowledge and an interactive animation with a variety of open and closed questions to assess understanding. Acceptability and feasibility of intervention: nurse and pharmacist prescribers (n=12-15) will use the intervention. Evaluation includes semi-structured interviews to capture information about how the user reacts to the design, delivery and content of the intervention and influences on understanding and engagement, and a pre-post survey to assess participants' perceptions of the impact of the intervention on knowledge, confidence and usefulness in terms of application to practice. Taking an initial inductive approach, data from interview transcripts will be coded and then analysed to derive themes. These themes will then be deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour model. Descriptive statistics will be used to analyse the survey data, and trends identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study has been provided by the School of Healthcare Sciences Research Governance and Ethics Committee, Cardiff University. The findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and through conference presentations.

Project description:BackgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been linked with adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Feedback interventions targeting PIP have shown promising results. However, translation from research to everyday practice remains a challenge. With the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as overarching framework, we aimed to explore the implementation processes performed by general practices in a real-life, quality improvement intervention using feedback on practice-level prescribing.MethodsAll 376 general practices in the Central Denmark Region received a prescribing feedback intervention targeting selected types of PIP. Six months later, they received an evaluation questionnaire, to which 45% responded. Among 102 practices reporting to have made changes in response to the intervention, we conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with ten GPs. Maximum variation was sought in terms of baseline prescribing status, implementation activities, practice type and geographical location. The interviews were analysed thematically using NPT.ResultsThe implementation processes in general practice reflected the four NPT constructs. Key motivators for implementation included the GPs' professional values and interests, but pragmatic considerations were also of importance (coherence). A collective versus an individual approach to the engagement and planning of the implementation process (cognitive participation) was observed. Similarly, a distinction was evident between practice-level actions involving the entire practice team as opposed to individual-level actions performed by the individual GP (collective action). Several challenges to the implementation processes were identified, including patient influences and competing priorities at multiple levels (reflexive monitoring). Additionally, internal evaluation and normalisation of new practices occurred in varying degrees.ConclusionNPT provided a useful framework for understanding implementation processes in general practice. Our results emphasise that clear professional aims and feasible content of interventions are key for GP motivation. This may be ensured through cooperation with GPs' professional organisation, which may strengthen intervention legitimacy and uptake. Two main implementation strategies were identified: practice-level and GP-level strategies. Intervention developers need to recognise both strategies to deliver intervention content and implementation support that promote sustainable improvements in prescribing practice. Competing demands and patient influences remain important challenges that need to be addressed in future studies to further facilitate the reduction of PIPs.

Dataset Information

Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implementation of rules based computerised bedside prescribing and administration: intervention study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets