2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.01.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring the effects of patients taking a vigilant role in collaborating on their e-medication administration record

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
34
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
34
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One hospital introduced a Practice Partnership Model of Care and reported reduced medication errors (Cann & Gardner, ). Overall however, there are few studies exploring the culture of patient involvement in medication administration (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, ; de Jong, Ros, van Leeuwen, & Schrijvers, )…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One hospital introduced a Practice Partnership Model of Care and reported reduced medication errors (Cann & Gardner, ). Overall however, there are few studies exploring the culture of patient involvement in medication administration (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, ; de Jong, Ros, van Leeuwen, & Schrijvers, )…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To manage uncertainty during medication administration and determine the best option or outcome, nurses in this study frequently sought clarification from other HPs whom they respected. At times, they would defer to alternative viewpoints to confirm or clarify their knowledge (Cranley, Doran, Tourangeau, Kushniruk, & Nagle, 2009). As the key personnel involved in medication administration nurses spent considerable time facilitating the collection of information, framing options for patients and other HPs and filtering information prior to deciding on the appropriate action as others have found (Johnson et al, 2017b;Liu, Gerdtz, & Manias, 2016;Manias, Aitken, & Dunning, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tables 1 to 4 show consensual scores of quality assessment. Half of the studies included in this systematic review were of high quality [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Of the 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 9 were of medium quality [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], and 1 was of high quality [33].…”
Section: Quality Ratings: Characterizing the Evidence Basementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Common methodological issues observed in the RCTs had to do with a lack of concealment of allocation to treatment groups, such as nonblinding of participants to treatment assignment [28], nonblinding of those delivering treatment, [24,30,31] or nonblinding of outcome assessors to treatment [24][25][26][27][29][30][31]. Among the quasi-experimental studies, 6 out of 7 [14,16,18,19,21,22] were of high quality, and 1 was of low quality [34]. The low-quality study did not have a control group, did not report if the participants included from the 3 different sites were similar at baseline, did not describe and analyze the incomplete follow-up, and did not report the reliability of the outcome measures.…”
Section: Quality Ratings: Characterizing the Evidence Basementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have shown that patients using digital health technologies are more engaged and informed about their health. [2][3][4][5] These patients display greater motivation and capability to improve their health, and feel better equipped to have intelligent discussions with health care providers. 3,4 Although a multitude of technological products are available, the health care industry has to determine how to shrink the gap between technological advancement and current health care reality.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%