Designing for distractions: A human factors approach to decreasing interruptions at a centralised medication station

Division of Neonatology, University of Virginia Health System, P.O. Box 800386, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908, USA
BMJ quality & safety (Impact Factor: 3.99). 08/2012; 21(11):939-47. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000289
Source: PubMed


To decrease interruptions around a centrally-located, centralised, open paediatric medication station.
Several established human factors methodologies were used to study paediatric medication administration, including cases with 'walk through' and verbal protocols; semi-structured interviews, including critical incident analysis; hierarchical task analysis; and observation.
Inexpensive barriers were constructed that protected the tasks likely to lead to errors if interrupted. Meanwhile, sight lines were maintained preserving a family-friendly sense of accessibility of nurses, staff situation awareness and collegiality. Interruptions were significantly reduced and staff attitudes towards the station were significantly improved.
Targeted barriers may prove useful in other interruptive and chaotic hospital workspaces. They do not require costly training, can be achieved inexpensively and may reduce distractions and interruptions during tasks vulnerable to error. Additionally, the human factors methodologies employed can be applied to other safety improvement projects.

Download full-text


Available from: Lacey Colligan, Apr 30, 2014
1 Follower
94 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Distraction is a common source of potential error that is well established within the fields of human factors research and cognitive psychology. High levels of distraction in healthcare settings pose a constant threat to patient safety. New technologies have increased the number and types of distractions present in these settings. Analysis of reports submitted to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority in 2010 and 2011 containing relevant terms, namely “distract,” “interrupt,” or “forgot,” identified 1,015 reports that could be attributed to distraction. The majority of events were classified as medication errors (59.6%), followed by errors related to procedures, treatments, or tests (27.8%). Thirteen events were reported that resulted in patient harm. A total of 40 reports specifically mention distractions from phones, computers, or other technologic devices contributing to errors. This article examines the broader issue of distractions that cause medical errors and outlines strategies for decreasing the potential for distraction and harm. These risk reduction strategies include developing systems and processes that reduce or eliminate distractions and teaching effective techniques for handling distractions.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a need to identify effective interventions to minimize the threat posed by medication administration errors (MAEs). Our objective was to review and critically appraise interventions designed to reduce MAEs in the hospital setting. Ten electronic databases were searched between 1985 and November 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (CTs) reporting rates of MAEs or related adverse drug events between an intervention group and a comparator group were included. Data from each study were independently extracted and assessed for potential risk of bias by two authors. Risk ratios (RRs, with 95 % confidence intervals [CIs]) were used to examine the effect of an intervention. Six RCTs and seven CTs were included. Types of interventions clustered around four main themes: medication use technology (n = 4); nurse education and training (n = 3); changing practice in anesthesia (n = 2); and ward system changes (n = 4). Reductions in MAE rates were reported by five studies; these included automated drug dispensing (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.53-1.00), computerized physician order entry (RR 0.51, 95 % 0.40-0.66), barcode-assisted medication administration with electronic administration records (RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.53-0.95), nursing education/training using simulation (RR 0.17, 95 % CI 0.08-0.38), and clinical pharmacist-led training (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.67-0.87). Increased or equivocal outcome rates were found for the remaining studies. Weaknesses in the internal or external validity were apparent for most included studies. Theses and conference proceedings were excluded and data produced outside commercial publishing were not searched. There is emerging evidence of the impact of specific interventions to reduce MAEs in hospitals, which warrant further investigation using rigorous and standardized study designs. Theory-driven efforts to understand the underlying causes of MAEs may lead to more effective interventions in the future.
    Drug Safety 04/2014; 37(5). DOI:10.1007/s40264-014-0152-0 · 2.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Nurses are frequently interrupted during medication verification and administration; however, few interventions exist to mitigate resulting errors, and the impact of these interventions on medication safety is poorly understood. Objective The study objectives were to (A) assess the effects of interruptions on medication verification and administration errors, and (B) design and test the effectiveness of targeted interventions at reducing these errors. Methods The study focused on medication verification and administration in an ambulatory chemotherapy setting. A simulation laboratory experiment was conducted to determine interruption-related error rates during specific medication verification and administration tasks. Interventions to reduce these errors were developed through a participatory design process, and their error reduction effectiveness was assessed through a postintervention experiment. Results Significantly more nurses committed medication errors when interrupted than when uninterrupted. With use of interventions when interrupted, significantly fewer nurses made errors in verifying medication volumes contained in syringes (16/18; 89% preintervention error rate vs 11/19; 58% postintervention error rate; p=0.038; Fisher's exact test) and programmed in ambulatory pumps (17/18; 94% preintervention vs 11/19; 58% postintervention; p=0.012). The rate of error commission significantly decreased with use of interventions when interrupted during intravenous push (16/18; 89% preintervention vs 6/19; 32% postintervention; p=0.017) and pump programming (7/18; 39% preintervention vs 1/19; 5% postintervention; p=0.017). No statistically significant differences were observed for other medication verification tasks. Conclusions Interruptions can lead to medication verification and administration errors. Interventions were highly effective at reducing unanticipated errors of commission in medication administration tasks, but showed mixed effectiveness at reducing predictable errors of detection in medication verification tasks. These findings can be generalised and adapted to mitigate interruption-related errors in other settings where medication verification and administration are required.
    BMJ quality & safety 06/2014; 23(11). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002484 · 3.99 Impact Factor