Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: a mixed-methods randomised user testing study
File(s)737.full.pdf (2.07 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Feather, Calandra
Clarke, Jonathon
Appelbaum, Nicholas
Darzi, Ara
Franklin, Bryony
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
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 the workflow steps most vulnerable to error and to 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 semistructured 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 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, 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.
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 semistructured 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 orders) compared with standard practice (28.3% of 120 orders; odds ratio 0.18, 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.
Date Issued
2025-11-01
Date Acceptance
2024-10-21
Citation
BMJ Quality & Safety, 2025, 34 (11), pp.737-746
ISSN
2044-5423
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Start Page
737
End Page
746
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Quality & Safety
Volume
34
Issue
11
Copyright Statement
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
License URL
Identifier
10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017733
Publication Status
Published
Rights Embargo Date
10000-01-01
Date Publish Online
2024-11-21