BackgroundNonadherence and medication errors are common among patients with complex drug regimens. Apps for smartphones and tablets are effective for improving adherence, but they have not been tested in elderly patients with complex chronic conditions and who typically have less experience with this type of technology.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to design, implement, and evaluate a medication self-management app (called ALICE) for elderly patients taking multiple medications with the intention of improving adherence and safe medication use.MethodsA single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted with a control and an experimental group (N=99) in Spain in 2013. The characteristics of ALICE were specified based on the suggestions of 3 nominal groups with a total of 23 patients and a focus group with 7 professionals. ALICE was designed for Android and iOS to allow for the personalization of prescriptions and medical advice, showing images of each of the medications (the packaging and the medication itself) together with alerts and multiple reminders for each alert. The randomly assigned patients in the control group received oral and written information on the safe use of their medications and the patients in the experimental group used ALICE for 3 months. Pre and post measures included rate of missed doses and medication errors reported by patients, scores from the 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4), level of independence, self-perceived health status, and biochemical test results. In the experimental group, data were collected on their previous experience with information and communication technologies, their rating of ALICE, and their perception of the level of independence they had achieved. The intergroup intervention effects were calculated by univariate linear models and ANOVA, with the pre to post intervention differences as the dependent variables.ResultsData were obtained from 99 patients (48 and 51 in the control and experimental groups, respectively). Patients in the experimental group obtained better MMAS-4 scores (P<.001) and reported fewer missed doses of medication (P=.02). ALICE only helped to significantly reduce medication errors in patients with an initially higher rate of errors (P<.001). Patients with no experience with information and communication technologies reported better adherence (P<.001), fewer missed doses (P<.001), and fewer medication errors (P=.02). The mean satisfaction score for ALICE was 8.5 out of 10. In all, 45 of 51 patients (88%) felt that ALICE improved their independence in managing their medications.ConclusionsThe ALICE app improves adherence, helps reduce rates of forgetting and of medication errors, and increases perceived independence in managing medication. Elderly patients with no previous experience with information and communication technologies are capable of effectively using an app designed to help them take their medicine more safely.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02071498; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0207...
BackgroundAdverse events (AEs) cause harm in patients and disturbance for the professionals involved in the event (second victims). This study assessed the impact of AEs in primary care (PC) and hospitals in Spain on second victims.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted. We carried out a survey based on a random sample of doctors and nurses from PC and hospital settings in Spain. A total of 1087 health professionals responded, 610 from PC and 477 from hospitals.ResultsA total of 430 health professionals (39.6%) had informed a patient of an error. Reporting to patients was carried out by those with the strongest safety culture (Odds Ratio –OR- 1.1, 95% Confidence Interval –CI- 1.0-1.2), nurses (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), those under 50 years of age (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and primary care staff (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). A total of 381 (62.5%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 346 (72.5%, IC95% 69-77%) primary care and hospital health professionals, respectively, reported having gone through the second-victim experience, either directly or through a colleague, in the previous 5 years. The emotional responses were: feelings of guilt (521, 58.8%), anxiety (426, 49.6%), re-living the event (360, 42.2%), tiredness (341, 39.4%), insomnia (317, 38.0%) and persistent feelings of insecurity (284, 32.8%). In doctors, the most common responses were: feelings of guilt (OR 0.7 IC95% 0.6-0.8), re-living the event (OR 0.7, IC95% o.6-0.8), and anxiety (OR 0.8, IC95% 0.6-0.9), while nurses showed greater solidarity in terms of supporting the second victim, in both PC (p = 0.019) and hospital (p = 0.019) settings.ConclusionsAdverse events cause guilt, anxiety, and loss of confidence in health professionals. Most are involved in such events as second victims at least once in their careers. They rarely receive any training or education on coping strategies for this phenomenon.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0790-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundAdverse events (AE) are also the cause of suffering in health professionals involved. This study was designed to identify and analyse organization-level strategies adopted in both primary care and hospitals in Spain to address the impact of serious AE on second and third victims.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare organizations assessing: safety culture; health organization crisis management plans for serious AE; actions planned to ensure transparency in communication with patients (and relatives) who experience an AE; support for second victims; and protective measures to safeguard the institution’s reputation (the third victim).ResultsA total of 406 managers and patient safety coordinators replied to the survey. Deficient provision of support for second victims was acknowledged by 71 and 61 % of the participants from hospitals and primary care respectively; these respondents reported there was no support protocol for second victims in place in their organizations. Regarding third victim initiatives, 35 % of hospital and 43 % of primary care professionals indicated no crisis management plan for serious AE existed in their organization, and in the case of primary care, there was no crisis committee in 34 % of cases. The degree of implementation of second and third victim support interventions was perceived to be greater in hospitals (mean 14.1, SD 3.5) than in primary care (mean 11.8, SD 3.1) (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMany Spanish health organizations do not have a second and third victim support or a crisis management plan in place to respond to serious AEs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0994-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundAdverse events (incidents that harm a patient) can also produce emotional hardship for the professionals involved (second victims). Although a few international pioneering programs exist that aim to facilitate the recovery of the second victim, there are no known initiatives that aim to raise awareness in the professional community about this issue and prevent the situation from worsening.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to design and evaluate an online program directed at frontline hospital and primary care health professionals that raises awareness and provides information about the second victim phenomenon.MethodsThe design of the Mitigating Impact in Second Victims (MISE) online program was based on a literature review, and its contents were selected by a group of 15 experts on patient safety with experience in both clinical and academic settings. The website hosting MISE was subjected to an accreditation process by an external quality agency that specializes in evaluating health websites. The MISE structure and content were evaluated by 26 patient safety managers at hospitals and within primary care in addition to 266 frontline health care professionals who followed the program, taking into account its comprehension, usefulness of the information, and general adequacy. Finally, the amount of knowledge gained from the program was assessed with three objective measures (pre- and posttest design).ResultsThe website earned Advanced Accreditation for health websites after fulfilling required standards. The comprehension and practical value of the MISE content were positively assessed by 88% (23/26) and 92% (24/26) of patient safety managers, respectively. MISE was positively evaluated by health care professionals, who awarded it 8.8 points out of a maximum 10. Users who finished MISE improved their knowledge on patient safety terminology, prevalence and impact of adverse events and clinical errors, second victim support models, and recommended actions following a severe adverse event (P<.001).ConclusionsThe MISE program differs from existing intervention initiatives by its preventive nature in relation to the second victim phenomenon. Its online nature makes it an easily accessible tool for the professional community. This program has shown to increase user’s knowledge on this issue and it helps them correct their approach. Furthermore, it is one of the first initiatives to attempt to bring the second victim phenomenon closer to primary care.
Recommendations preventing aftermath of AEs have been identified. These have been designed for the hospital and the primary care settings; to cope with patient's emotions and for tacking the impact of AE in the second victim's colleagues. Its systematic use should help for the establishment of organizational action plans after an AE.
Background COVID-19 became a major public health concern in March 2020. Due to the high rate of hospitalizations for COVID-19 in a short time, health care workers and other involved staff are subjected to a large workload and high emotional distress. Objective The objective of this study is to develop a digital tool to provide support resources that might prevent and consider acute stress reactions in health care workers and other support staff due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The contents of the digital platform were created through an evidence-based review and consensus conference. The website was built using the Google Blogger tool. The Android version of the app was developed in the Java and XML languages using Android Studio version 3.6, and the iOS version was developed in the Swift language using Xcode version 11.5. The app was evaluated externally by the Andalusian Agency for Healthcare Quality. Results We detected the needs and pressing situations of frontline health care workers, and then, we proposed a serial of recommendations and support resources to address them. These resources were redesigned using the feedback received. A website in three different languages (Spanish, English, and Portuguese) and a mobile app were developed with these contents, and the AppSaludable Quality Seal was granted to the app. A specific self-report scale to measure acute stress and additional tools were included to support the health care workforce. This instrument has been used in several Latin American countries and has been adapted considering cultural differences. The resources section of the website was the most visited with 18,516 out of 68,913 (26.9%) visits, and the “Self-Report Acute Stress Scale” was the most visited resource with 6468 out of 18,516 (34.9%) visits. Conclusions The Be + against COVID platform (website and app) was developed and launched to offer a pool of recommendations and support resources, which were specifically designed to protect the psychological well-being and the work morale of health care workers. This is an original initiative different from the usual psychological assistance hotlines.
ObjectivesIdentify the sources of overuse from the point of view of the Spanish primary care professionals, and analyse the frequency of overuse due to pressure from patients in addition to the responses when professionals face these demands.DesignA cross-sectional study.SettingPrimary care in Spain.ParticipantsA non-randomised sample of 2201 providers (general practitioners, paediatricians and nurses) was recruited during the survey.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe frequency, causes and responsibility for overuse, the frequency that patients demand unnecessary tests or procedures, the profile of the most demanding patients, and arguments for dissuading the patient.ResultsIn all, 936 general practitioners, 682 paediatricians and 286 nurses replied (response rate 18.6%). Patient requests (67%) and defensive medicine (40%) were the most cited causes of overuse. Five hundred and twenty-two (27%) received requests from their patients almost every day for unnecessary tests or procedures, and 132 (7%) recognised granting the requests. The lack of time in consultation, and information about new medical advances and treatments that patients could find on printed and digital media, contributed to the professional’s inability to adequately counter this pressure by patients. Clinical safety (49.9%) and evidence (39.4%) were the arguments that dissuaded patients from their requests the most. Cost savings was not a convincing argument (6.8%), above all for paediatricians (4.3%). General practitioners resisted more pressure from their patients (x2=88.8, P<0.001, percentage difference (PD)=17.0), while nurses admitted to carrying out more unnecessary procedures (x2=175.7, P<0.001, PD=12.3).ConclusionSatisfying the patient and patient uncertainty about what should be done and defensive medicine practices explains some of the frequent causes of overuse. Safety arguments are useful to dissuade patients from their requests.
Older complex chronic patients are unaware of the precautions they must adopt to use their medications safely. Patient knowledge does contribute to reducing medication errors. When physicians change prescriptions, modify doses or introduce new medications, more information needs to be provided for safe use of the drugs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.