Effects of a computerized feedback intervention on safety performance by junior doctors: Results from a randomized mixed method study

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Redwood, Sabi ^a   Ngwenya, Nothando B ^a,b   Hodson, James ^b   Ferner, Robin E ^a   Coleman, Jamie J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BIRMINGHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical decision support; Junior doctors; Patient safety

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT SAFETY; PHYSICIAN; PRESCRIPTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARDS;

ADULT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ORDER ENTRY SYSTEMS; PATIENT SAFETY; PHYSICIANS; PRESCRIPTIONS;

EID: 84878399022     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-63     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Improving safety with information technology. Bates DW, Gawande AA, N Engl J Med 2003 348 2526 2534 10.1056/NEJMsa020847 12815139 (Pubitemid 36706541)
2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Molla S, To err is human: building a safer health system (institute of medicine) Washington: National Academy Press 2000
3. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, et al. PLoS Med 2011 8 1 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000387 (accessed 2 Mar 2012) 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387
4. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008 15 5 585 600 10.1197/jamia.M2667 18579832
5. Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. Jasper MW, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011 18 3 327 334 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000094 21422100
6. Overview of clinical decision support systems. Berner ES, La Lande TJL, Clinical decision support systems; theory and practice New York: Springer Science and Business Media, Berner ES, 2007 3 22 23828174
7. Can an electronic prescribing system detect doctors who are more likely to make a serious prescribing error? Coleman JJ, Hemming K, Nightingale PG, et al. J R Soc Med 2011 104 5 208 218 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110061 21558099
8. Eckerson WW, Performance dashboards: measuring, monitoring and managing your business New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons 2006
9. Hospital boards and quality dashboards. Kroch E, Vaughn T, Koepke M, et al. J Patient Saf 2006 2 1 10 19
10. Dashboards in neonatology. Flannigan C, Toland U, Hogan M, Clinical Audit 2010 2 79 81
11. Model for improvement-part Two: measurement and feedback for quality improvement efforts. Randolph G, Esporas M, Provost L, et al. Pediatr Clin North Am 2009 56 779 798 10.1016/j.pcl.2009.05.012 19660627
12. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD, Qual Saf Health Care 2006 15 6 433 36 10.1136/qshc.2006.018549 17142594 (Pubitemid 46025156)
13. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Archer JC, Med Educ 2010 44 1 101 108 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x 20078761
14. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Biometrics 1986 42 1 121 130 10.2307/2531248 3719049
15. The qualitative research interview. DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF, Med Educ 2006 40 4 314 321 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x 16573666
16. Focus group research: using group dynamics to explore perceptions, experiences and understandings. Kitzinger J, Qualitative research in health care Maidenhead: Open University Press, Holloway I, 2005 56 70
17. Glaser BG, Strauss AL, Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter 1967
18. A novel system of prescribing feedback to reduce errors: a pilot study. Gordon M, Bose-Haider B, Int J Risk Saf Med 2012 24 4 207 14 23135335
19. A quality improvement programme to increase compliance with an anti-infective prescribing policy. Thakkar K, Gilchrist M, Dickinson E, Benn J, Franklin BD, Jacklin A, Anti-infective Policy Implementation Group, J Antimicrob Chemother 2011 66 8 1916 20 10.1093/jac/dkr207 21642650
20. An educational and audit tool to reduce prescribing error in intensive care. Thomas AN, Boxall EM, Laha SK, Day AJ, Grundy D, Qual Saf Health Care 2008 17 5 360 3 10.1136/qshc.2007.023242 18842975
21. Work-sampling: a statistical approach to evaluation of the effect of computers on work patterns in health care. Sittig D, Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems New York: Springer, Anderson J, Aydin C, 2005 174 88
22. Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review. Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Can Med Assoc J 2010 182 5 216 E25 10.1503/cmaj.090578
23. Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems. Main C, Moxham T, Wyatt JC, Kay J, Anderson R, Steins K, Health Technol Assess 2010 14 48 1 227 21208547
24. The rate of missed test results in an emergency department: an evaluation using an electronic test order and results viewing system. Callen J, Paoloni R, Georgiou A, Prgomet M, Westbrook J, Methods Inf Med 2012 49 1 37 43
25. Tarkan S, Plaisant C, Shneiderman B, Hettinger AZ, Reducing missed laboratory results: defining temporal responsibility, generating user interfaces for test process tracking, and retrospective analyses to identify problems: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2011 1382 91
26. The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. Ash J, Sittig D, Poon E, Guappone K, Campbell E, Dykstra R, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007 14 4 415 23 10.1197/jamia.M2373 17460127 (Pubitemid 46963036)
27. Development of a context model to prioritize drug safety alerts in CPOE systems. Riedmann D, Jung M, Hackl W, Stuhlinger W, van der Sijs H, Ammenwerth E, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011 11 1 35 10.1186/1472-6947-11-35 21612623
28. Drug safety alert generation and overriding in a large Dutch university medical centre. van der Sijs H, Mulder A, van Gelder T, Aarts J, Berg M, Vulto A, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009 18 10 941 47 10.1002/pds.1800 19579216
29. Personalised performance feedback reduces narcotic prescription errors in a NICU. Sullivan KM, Suh S, Monk H, Chuo J, BMJ Quality & Safety. 2012 22 3 256 62 23828879
30. Providing feedback to hospital doctors about prescribing errors; a pilot study. Franklin B, O'Grady K, Paschalides C, Utley M, Gallivan S, Jacklin A, et al. Pharm World Sci 2007 29 3 213 20 10.1007/s11096-006-9075-x 17310304 (Pubitemid 46872983)
31. Dornan T, Ashcroft D, Heathfield H, Lewis P, Miles J, Taylor D, et al. An in depth investigation into causes of prescribing errors by foundation trainees in relation to their medical education General Medical Council: EQUIP study. London 2007
32. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorop S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 6 D000259 10.1002/14651858.CD000259. pub3/pdf/standard 22696318
33. Information technology and dataveillance. Clarke R, Commun ACM 1988 31 5 498 512 10.1145/42411.42413 (Pubitemid 18610089)
34. The structure of reflective practice in medicine. Mamede S, Schmidt HG, Med Educ 2004 38 12 1302 1308 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01917.x 15566542 (Pubitemid 39647382)