Nurses' acceptance of Smart IV pump technology

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volumn 79, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 401-411

  Carayon, Pascale ^a   Hundt, Ann Schoofs ^a   Wetterneck, Tosha B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptance process; Infusion pump; Nurses; Safety management; Smart IV pump technology; Survey; User acceptance

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTANCE PROCESS; INFUSION PUMP; NURSES; PUMP TECHNOLOGY; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; USER ACCEPTANCE;

DRUG INFUSION; HOSPITALS; NURSING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SURVEYS; TECHNOLOGY;

PUMPS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NURSE ATTITUDE; NURSING STAFF; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; PUMP; RELIABILITY; SATISFACTION; SMART IV PUMP; FEMALE; INFUSION PUMP; INSTRUMENTATION; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MALE; MEDICATION ERROR; MIDDLE AGED; NURSING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STANDARD;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFUSION PUMPS; INFUSIONS, INTRAVENOUS; MALE; MEDICATION ERRORS; MIDDLE AGED; NURSE'S ROLE;

EID: 77955895766     PISSN: 13865056     EISSN: 18728243     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Institute for Safe Medication Practices, " Smart" infusion pumps join CPOE and bar coding as important ways to prevent medication errors, Retrieved on February 12, 2009, from http://www.ismp.org/Newsletters/acutecare/articles/20020207.asp.
2. Taxis K. Who is responsible for the safety of infusion devices? It's high time for action!. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2005, 14:76.
3. Bates D.W., Vanderveen T., Seger D., Yamaga C., Rothschild J. Variability in intravenous medication practices: implications for medication safety. Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2005, 31:203-210.
4. Nuckols T.K., Bower A.G., Paddock S.M., Hilborne L.H., Wallace P., Rothschild J.M., et al. Programmable infusion pumps in ICUs: an analysis of corresponding adverse drug events. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008, 23(Suppl. 1):41-45.
5. Rothschild J.M., Keohane C.A., Cook E.F., Orav E.J., Burdick E., Thompson S., et al. A controlled trial of smart infusion pumps to improve medication safety in critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine 2005, 33:533-540.
6. Pedersen C.A., Schneider P.J., Scheckelhoff D.J. ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: dispensing and administration-2005. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2006, 63:327-345.
7. Pedersen C.A., Schneider P.J., Scheckelhoff D.J. ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: dispensing and administration-2008. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2009, 66:926-946.
8. ECRI New perspectives on general-purpose infusion pumps. Advances in the technology, changes in our ratings. Health Devices 2002, 31:354-384.
9. Carayon P., Wetterneck T.B., Hundt A.S., Ozkaynac M., Ram P., DeSilvey J., et al. Observing nurse interaction with infusion pump technologies. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation 2005, 2:349-364.
10. Wetterneck T.B., Schroeder M., Skibinski K., Roberts T.L., Carayon P. Challenges with the performance of failure mode and effects analysis in healthcare organizations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting-2004 2004, 1708-1712. The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Ed.).
11. Birk S. Smart pumps need OK from clinicians. Materials Management in Health Care 2008, 17:38-40.
12. Nemeth C., Nunnally M., Bitan Y., Nunnally S., Cook R.I. Between choice and chance: the role of human factors in acute care equipment decisions. Journal of Patient Safety 2009, 5:114-121.
13. Nunnally M., Nemeth C.P., Brunetti V., Cook R.I. Lost in menuspace: user interactions with complex medical devices. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 2004, 34:736-742.
14. Zhang J., Patel V.L., Johnson T.R., Chung P., Turley J.P. Evaluating and predicting patient safety for medical devices with integral information technology. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation 2005, 2:323-336.
15. Lorenzi N.M., Riley R.T., Blyth A.J., Southon G., Dixon B.J. Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics: review of the literature. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1997, 4:79-93.
16. Kaplan B. Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1997, 4:94-101.
17. Staggers N., Kobus D. Comparing response time, errors, and satisfaction between text-based and graphical user interfaces during nursing order tasks. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2000, 7:164-176.
18. Ammenwerth E., Mansmann U., Iller C., Eichstadter R. Factors accepting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: results of a two-year study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2003, 10:69-84.
19. Brennan P.F. A discipline by any other name. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2002, 9:306-307.
20. Kaplan B., Brennan P.F., Dowling A.F., Friedman C.P., Peel V. Toward an informatics research agenda: key people and organizational issues. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2001, 8:235-241.
21. Staggers N., Kobus D., Brown C. Nurses' evaluations of a novel design for an electronic medication administration record. Computers, Informatics, Nursing 2007, 25:67-75.
22. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989, 13:319-340.
23. Nielsen J. Usability Engineering 1993, Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
24. Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1993, 38:475-487.
25. Timmons S. Nurses resisting information technology. Nursing Inquiry 2003, 10:257-269.
26. Handy J., Hunter I., Whitddett R. User acceptance of inter-organizational electronic medical records. Health Informatics Journal 2001, 7:103-107.
27. Mahmood M.A., Burn J.M., Gemoets L.A., Jacquez C. Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2000, 52:751-771.
28. Karsh B.T. Beyond usability: designing effective technology implementation systems to promote patient safety. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2004, 13:388-394.
29. Short D., Frischer M., Bashford J. Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: a qualitative study of GPs' perspectives. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2004, 73:357-362.
30. Darr A., Harrison M.I., Shakked L., Shalom N. Physicians' and nurses' reactions to electronic medical records. Managerial and occupational implications. Journal of Health Organization and Management 2003, 17:349-359.
31. Carayon P., Karsh B.T. Sociotechnical issues in the implementation of imaging technology. Behaviour and Information Technology 2000, 19:247-262.
32. Dillon T.W., McDowell D., Salimian F., Conklin D. Perceived ease of use and usefulness of bedside-computer systems. Computer in Nursing 1998, 16:151-156.
33. Scarpa R., Smeltzer S.C., Jasion B. Attitudes of nurses toward computerization: a replication. Computer in Nursing 1992, 10:72-80.
34. Chin J.P., Diehl V.A., Norman K.L. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of SIGCHI 1998, 213-218. ACM/SIGCHI, New York, NY.
35. Bailey J.E., Pearson S.W. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science 1983, 29:530-545.
36. Keohane C.A., Hayes J., Saniuk C., Rothschild J.M., Bates D.W. Intravenous medication safety and Smart infusion systems: lessons learned and future opportunities. Journal of Infusion Nursing 2005, 28:321-328.
37. Battles J.B., Keyes M.A. Technology and patient safety: a two-edged sword. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology 2002, 36:84-88.
38. Koppel R., Metlay J.P., Cohen A., Abaluck B., Localio A.R., Kimmel S.E., et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medications errors. Journal of the American Medical Association 2005, 293:1197-1203.
39. Smith M.J., Carayon P. New technology, automation, and work organization: stress problems and improved technology implementation strategies. The International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing 1995, 5:99-116.
40. Lorenzi N., Riley R.T. Organizational issues=change. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2003, 69:197-203.
41. Wetterneck T.B., Skibinski K.A., Roberts T.L., Kleppin S.M., Schroeder M.E., Enloe M., et al. Using failure mode and effects analysis to plan implementation of smart IV pump technology. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2006, 63:1528-1538.
42. Hundt A.S., Carayon P., Wetterneck T.B., Love T., Haack B., Schroeder M., et al. Evaluating design changes of a Smart IV pump. Paper Presented at the Healthcare Systems Ergonomics and Patient Safety Conference, Florence, Italy, April 2005, Proceedings of the International Conference-HEPS 2005 2005, 239-242. R. Tartalgia, S. Bagnara (Eds.).
43. McAlearney A.S., Vrontos J.J., Schneider P.J., Curran C.R., Czerwinski B.S., Pedersen C.A. Strategic work-arounds to accommodate new technology: the case of smart pumps in hospital care. Journal of Patient Safety 2007, 3:75-81.