Do best practice guidelines improve the legibility of pharmacy labels for the visually impaired?

Latham, Keziah; Waller, Sam; Schaitel, James

doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00816.x

Cited by 16 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 7 studies, no factors were identified [31,34,50,58,65,78,81] and in two, it was unclear [44]. Most studies reporting factors, discussed multiple individual factors (range = 1-7, average = 2.3) across multiple domains (range = 1-4, average = 2.0).…”

Section: Description Of Contributory/associated Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review

Cheraghi-Sohi

Panagioti

Daker‐White

et al. 2020

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Marginalised groups ('populations outside of mainstream society') experience severe health inequities, as well as increased risk of experiencing patient safety incidents. To date however no review exists to identify, map and analyse the literature in this area in order to understand 1) which marginalised groups have been studied in terms of patient safety research, 2) what the particular patient safety issues are for such groups and 3) what contributes to or is associated with these safety issues arising.Methods: Scoping review. Systematic searches were performed across six electronic databases in September 2019. The time frame for searches of the respective databases was from the year 2000 until present day.Results: The searches yielded 3346 articles, and 67 articles were included. Patient safety issues were identified for fourteen different marginalised patient groups across all studies, with 69% (n = 46) of the studies focused on four patient groups: ethnic minority groups, frail elderly populations, care home residents and low socio-economic status. Twelve separate patient safety issues were classified. Just over half of the studies focused on three issues represented in the patient safety literature, and in order of frequency were: medication safety, adverse outcomes and near misses. In total, 157 individual contributing or associated factors were identified and mapped to one of seven different factor types from the Framework of Contributory Factors Influencing Clinical Practice within the London Protocol. Patient safety issues were mostly multifactorial in origin including patient factors, health provider factors and health care system factors.Conclusions: This review highlights that marginalised patient groups are vulnerable to experiencing a variety patient safety issues and points to a number of gaps. The findings indicate the need for further research to understand the intersectional nature of marginalisation and the multi-dimensional nature of patient safety issues, for groups that have been under-researched, including those with mental health problems, communication and cognitive impairments. Such understanding provides a basis for working collaboratively to co-design training, services and/or interventions designed to remove or at the very least minimise these increased risks.Trial registration: Not applicable for a scoping review.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Contributory/associated Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review

Cheraghi-Sohi

Panagioti

Daker‐White

et al. 2020

Int J Equity Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The number of articles identified from database search was as follows: Amed: 188; Cinahl: 42; Embase: 3095; HMIC: 57; Medline: 537; ProQuest: 13; PsycINFO: 72; and Web of Science: 89. After title, abstract and reference list searches, 11 studies were included, of which three were conducted in the UK, two in each of United States and Malaysia and one was conducted in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Thailand . Three studies included people described as deaf/hard of hearing/hearing‐impaired, and four studies included participants with sight loss .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies included people described as deaf/hard of hearing/hearing‐impaired, and four studies included participants with sight loss . One study included participants with ‘normal’ vision who used goggles to simulate sight loss . Two studies specifically sought to recruit participants over the age of 65 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of the pharmaceutical care needs of people with sensory loss

Killick

Macaden

Smith

et al. 2018

International Journal of Pharmacy Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This scoping review collated evidence of the pharmaceutical care needs of people with sensory loss (SL). Methods Electronic databases were searched with no limit on year of publication: Medline (1946); Embase; Cinahl (1979); and Web of Science (1985). Search terms included the following: pharmacy; sight/hearing/dual impairment. Studies were included if they involved people with SL requiring pharmaceutical care and/or pharmacists/pharmacy support staff providing pharmaceutical care for people with SL. All study designs were eligible. This was a scoping review, and as such, the quality of studies was not formally evaluated. Key findings Eleven studies were included. People with SL had lower levels of medication knowledge than their peers without SL. People with SL were identified as being at higher risk of iatrogenic harm than people without SL. Communication was a barrier to the provision of pharmaceutical care for people with hearing loss, with pharmacists relying on the provision of written information. The prevalence of SL increases with age, yet only two studies included older people. No studies involved family or carers of people with SL, people with dual loss or people with SL receiving polypharmacy. Conclusions There is a paucity of data regarding the pharmaceutical care needs of people with SL. Unmet pharmaceutical care needs put people with SL at increased risk of harm from their medicines. A detailed understanding of the needs of people with SL is required which will inform future delivery of pharmaceutical care for this vulnerable population.

show abstract

“…An estimated 1 in 12 North American adults have a self-reported “seeing disability,” with eye diseases, such as cataracts, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or macular degeneration being major causes of vision loss [9-11]. In a study of simulated vision loss, 3-point font is at the limit of legibility for healthy vision, whereas mild- to moderate-simulated vision loss renders anything smaller than 8 to 14 points illegible [12]. The result is that regular prescription medication labels cannot be read accurately by those with moderate-simulated visual impairment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ClereMed: Lessons Learned From a Pilot Study of a Mobile Screening Tool to Identify and Support Adults Who Have Difficulty With Medication Labels

Grindrod¹,

Gates²,

Dolovich³

et al. 2014

JMIR mHealth uHealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn order to take medications safely and effectively, individuals need to be able to see, read, and understand the medication labels. However, one-half of medication labels are currently misunderstood, often because of low literacy, low vision, and cognitive impairment. We sought to design a mobile tool termed ClereMed that could rapidly screen for adults who have difficulty reading or understanding their medication labels.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to build the ClereMed prototype; to determine the usability of the prototype with adults 55 and over; to assess its accuracy for identifying adults with low-functional reading ability, poor ability on a real-life pill-sorting task, and low cognition; and to assess the acceptability of a touchscreen device with older adults with age-related changes to vision and cognition.MethodsThis pilot study enrolled adults (≥55 years) who were recruited through pharmacies, retirement residences, and a low-vision optometry clinic. ClereMed is a hypertext markup language (HTML)-5 prototype app that simulates medication taking using an iPad, and also provides information on how to improve the accessibility of prescription labels. A paper-based questionnaire included questions on participant demographics, computer literacy, and the Systems Usability Scale (SUS). Cognition was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment tool, and functional reading ability was measured using the MNRead Acuity Chart. Simulation results were compared with a real-life, medication-taking exercise using prescription vials, tablets, and pillboxes.ResultsThe 47 participants had a mean age of 76 (SD 11) years and 60% (28/47) were female. Of the participants, 32% (15/47) did not own a computer or touchscreen device. The mean SUS score was 76/100. ClereMed correctly identified 72% (5/7) of participants with functional reading difficulty, and 63% (5/8) who failed a real-life pill-sorting task, but only 21% (6/28) of participants with cognitive impairment. Participants who owned a computer or touchscreen completed ClereMed in a mean time of 26 (SD 16) seconds, compared with 52 (SD 34) seconds for those who do not own a device (P<.001). Those who had difficulty, struggled with screen glare, button activation, and the “drag and drop” function.ConclusionsClereMed was well accepted by older participants, but it was only moderately accurate for reading ability and not for mild cognitive impairment. Future versions may be most useful as part of a larger medication assessment or as a tool to help family members and caregivers identify individuals with impaired functional reading ability. Future research is needed to improve the sensitivity for measuring cognitive impairment and on the feasibility of implementing a mobile app into pharmacy workflow.

show abstract

Do best practice guidelines improve the legibility of pharmacy labels for the visually impaired?

Cited by 16 publications

References 31 publications

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review

A scoping review of the pharmaceutical care needs of people with sensory loss

ClereMed: Lessons Learned From a Pilot Study of a Mobile Screening Tool to Identify and Support Adults Who Have Difficulty With Medication Labels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About