Usability and usefulness of (electronic) patient identification systems-A cross-sectional evaluation in German-speaking radiation oncology departments.
Adverse event
Biometric methods
Incident
Patient safety
Safety barrier
Journal
Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]
ISSN: 1439-099X
Titre abrégé: Strahlenther Onkol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8603469
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2023
15 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
15
03
2023
accepted:
13
08
2023
medline:
15
9
2023
pubmed:
15
9
2023
entrez:
15
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Patient misidentification in radiation oncology (RO) is a significant concern due to the potential harm to patient health and the burden on healthcare systems. Electronic patient identification systems (ePIS) are increasingly being used as an alternative or supplement to organizational systems (oPIS). The objective of this study was to assess the usability and usefulness of ePIS and oPIS in German-speaking countries. A cross-sectional survey was designed by a group of experts from various professional backgrounds in RO. The survey consisted of 38 questions encompassing quantitative and qualitative data on usability, user experience, and usefulness of PIS. It was available between August and October 2022. Of 118 eligible participants, 37% had implemented some kind of ePIS. Overall, 22% of participants who use an oPIS vs. 10% of participants who use an ePIS reported adverse events in terms of patients' misidentification in the past 5 years. Frequent or very frequent drop-outs of electronic systems were reported by 31% of ePIS users. Users of ePIS significantly more often affirmed a positive cost-benefit ratio of ePIS as well as an improvement of workflow, whereas users of oPIS more frequently apprehended a decrease in staffs' attention through ePIS. The response rate was 8%. The implementation of ePIS can contribute to efficient PI and improved processes. Apprehensions by oPIS users and assessments of ePIS users differ significantly in aspects of the perceived usefulness of ePIS. However, technical problems need to be addressed to ensure the reliability of ePIS. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different PIS on patient safety in RO.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37713170
doi: 10.1007/s00066-023-02148-9
pii: 10.1007/s00066-023-02148-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Slawomirski L, Auraaen A, Klazinga N (2017) The economics of patient safety. Strengthening a value-based approach to reducing patient harm at national level
Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Bovo C, Favaloro EJ (2017) Managing the patient identification crisis in healthcare and laboratory medicine. Clin Biochem 50:562–567
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.02.004
pubmed: 28179154
French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) (2011) Patient safety—paving the way for progress. Patient identification (La sécurité du patient N°1 Bulletin à l’attention des professionnels de la radiothérapie. Pour une dynamique de progrès)
Vorwerk H et al (2014) Protection of quality and innovation in radiation oncology: the prospective multicenter trial the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO-QUIRO study). Evaluation of time, attendance of medical staff, and resources during radiotherapy with IMRT. Strahlenther Onkol 190:433–443
doi: 10.1007/s00066-014-0634-0
pubmed: 24595416
American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) (2019) Safety is no accident ( https://www.astro.org/Patient-Care-and-Research/Patient-Safety/Safety-is-no-Accident/SINA-Digital-Book )
Australian commission for Safety and Quality in health care Ensuring correct patient, correct site, correct procedure in radiation therapy treatment. Accessed 10. July 2023
British Institute of Radiology & Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain) (2008) Towards safer radiotherapy. Royal College of Radiologists, London
World Health Organisation (2008) Radiotherapy risk profile technical manual. WHO Press
Bogdanich W (2010) Radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. The New York Times, vol 23
Baehr A et al (2022) Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the patient safety in German Radiation Oncology (pasaGeRO) project. Strahlenther Onkol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-022-01984-5
doi: 10.1007/s00066-022-01984-5
pubmed: 35931889
pmcid: 10033570
Baehr A, Oertel M, Kröger K, Eich HT, Haverkamp U (2020) Implementing a new scale for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for risk analysis in a radiation oncology department. Strahlenther Onkol 196:1128–1134
doi: 10.1007/s00066-020-01686-w
pubmed: 32951162
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (2021) Melde- und Informationssystem für bedeutsame Vorkommnisse bei Strahlenanwendungen am Menschen. Jahresbericht 2020 (Bericht der zentralen Stelle gemäß § 111 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 StrlSchV)
Joint Commission T (2019) National Patient Safety Goals® effective January 2023 for the hospital program
WHO Collaborating Centre for Patient Safety Solutions (2007) Patient Identification. Patient safety solutions
Riplinger L, Piera-Jiménez J, Dooling JP (2020) Patient identification techniques—approaches, implications, and findings. Yearb Med Inform 29:81–86
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701984
Essink HM et al (2020) Real-time person identification in a hospital setting: a systematic review. Sensors 20:3937
doi: 10.3390/s20143937
pubmed: 32679781
pmcid: 7411609
Saggese S et al (2019) Biometric recognition of newborns and infants by non-contact fingerprinting: lessons learned. Gates Open Res 3:1477
pubmed: 31410396
pmcid: 6667827
Deliversky J, Deliverska M (2018) Ethical and legal considerations in biometric data usage—Bulgarian perspective. Front Public Health 6:25
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00025
pubmed: 29484291
pmcid: 5816334
Wegner N, Lutz S, Staubus S, Münter M (2018) Elektronische Patientenakte und Workflowsteuerung in MOSAIQ© im Zusammenspiel mit der OPASCA Workflowsuite©. In: 49. Jahrestagung der DGMP und 21. Jahrestagung der ISMRM-DS
International Organization For Standardization (1998) ISO 9241-11—ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs): part 11: guidance on usability
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319
doi: 10.2307/249008
Sousa V, Lopez KD (2017) Towards usable e‑health: a systematic review of usability questionnaires. Appl Clin Inform 08:470–490
doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-10-R-0170
Hyzy M et al (2022) System usability scale benchmarking for digital health apps: meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 10:e37290
doi: 10.2196/37290
pubmed: 35980732
pmcid: 9437782
Danaher LA, Howells J, Holmes P, Scally P (2011) Is it possible to eliminate patient identification errors in medical imaging? J Am Coll Radiol 8:568–574
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2011.02.021
pubmed: 21807351
Willmann J et al (2021) Development of staffing, workload and infrastructure in member departments of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) radiation oncology group. Radiother Oncol 155:226–231
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.009
pubmed: 33217496
Mazur LM et al (2012) Quantitative assessment of workload and stressors in clinical radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:e571–e576
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.063
pubmed: 22503527
Nguyen EE, Connolly PM, Wong V (2010) Medication safety initiative in reducing medication errors. J Nurs Care Qual 25:224–230
doi: 10.1097/NCQ.0b013e3181ce3ae4
pubmed: 20535847
Anthony K, Wiencek C, Bauer C, Daly B, Anthony MK (2010) No interruptions please: impact of a no interruption zone on medication safety in intensive care units. Crit Care Nurse 30:21–29
doi: 10.4037/ccn2010473
pubmed: 20067939
Hendee WR, Herman MG (2010) Improving patient safety in radiation oncology: improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys 38:78–82
doi: 10.1118/1.3522875
Khammarnia M, Kassani A, Eslahi M (2015) The efficacy of patients’ wristband bar-code on prevention of medical errors: a meta-analysis study. Appl Clin Inform 6:716–727
doi: 10.4338/ACI-2015-06-R-0077
pubmed: 26767066
pmcid: 4704040
Alper SJ et al (2006) Protocol violations during medication administration in pediatrics. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 50:1019–1023
doi: 10.1177/154193120605001004
Mitchell Scott B, Considine J, Botti M (2014) Medication errors in ED: do patient characteristics and the environment influence the nature and frequency of medication errors? Australas Emerg Nurs J 17:167–175
doi: 10.1016/j.aenj.2014.07.004
pubmed: 25216984
Coiera E (2015) Technology, cognition and error. BMJ Qual Saf 24:417–422
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003484
pubmed: 26092566
pmcid: 4484254
Ford EC et al (2012) Quality Control Quantification (QCQ): a tool to measure the value of quality control checks in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol 84:e263–e269
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.04.036
Koch K, Härting H, Strauber C (2019) Durchführung und erste Erfahrungen mit einem Team Time Out (TTO) im Rahmen eines umfassenden Patient Safety Management Systems in der Strahlentherapie. DEGRO Jahreskongress Abstractband 2019. Strahlenther Onkol 195:1–218
Stout L, Joseph S (2016) Blood transfusion: patient identification and empowerment. Br J Nurs 25:138–143
doi: 10.12968/bjon.2016.25.3.138
pubmed: 26878405