Poster presentation
Title of Project
Presenter Name
University name
Introduction and Problem
Variables
Descriptive Data
Results
Results (cont.)
Clinical Questions/PICOT
Discussion
Project Limitations
Conclusion and Recommendations
Purpose of the Project
The data analysis was in line with the needs of the project: statistical tests, including t-test and Wilcoxon signed ranks, were employed to determine if there were statistically significant differences between pre- and post-test measurements. This way, the relationships between the independent and dependent variables were reliably inferred (Polit & Beck, 2017)
Data types:
Survey: quantitative, ordinal (Likert scale).
Reports: quantitative, ratio (number of mistakes).
Data analysis approaches:
Software: SPSS.
Survey: Wilcoxon signed ranks test.
Reports: paired t-test.
Data Analysis
The project employed four Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, three Medical Doctors, and one Physician Assistant who exhibited significant resistance to the use of EHR.
References
.
.
Several studies have shown the benefits of the use of electronic health records (EHR) for patients’ safety, as well as their ability to improve efficiency in primary care settings (Porterfield, Engelbert, & Coustasse, 2014). Regardless of the positive effects of the implementation of EHR, health care providers have moved slowly to adopt this technology (King, Patel, Jamoom, & Furukawa, 2014). Practitioners who do not want to adopt EHR, especially electronic prescription, can endanger patient safety.
Medication errors, in turn, are a serious issue that causes numerous safety incidents in primary care. Studies have shown that the use of EHR significantly reduces the number of prescription errors that can harm patients (Liao et al., 2017). Palabindala, Pamarthy, and Jonnalagadda (2016) showed that the use of EHR could reduce medication error while also resulting in improved communications between patients and healthcare teams
The purpose of this quantitative quasi-experimental project was to determine if there was a relationship between the application of an educational program and the improvement of practitioners’ perception of EHR usability, as well as the reduction of the number of prescription medication errors, at a medical group practice in the Southeastern of the United States (US).
The PICOT question created for the project was as follows: (P) Among healthcare practitioners, (I) how does the implementation of an educational program in a primary care medical center in the Southeast of the US (C) compared to the pre-intervention measurements in the prior four weeks (O) influences primary care practitioners’ perceptions of the usability of EHR and the incidence of prescription medication errors (T) within four weeks of participating in the program?
The following clinical questions guide this quantitative project:
Q1: How does the implementation of an educational program influence the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding EHR usability?
Q2: How does the implementation of an educational program influence prescription medication error incidence?
Variable 1: Quality improvement educational program (independent)
Variable 2: Primary care practitioners’ perception of EHR usability (dependent)
Variable3: Number of prescription medication errors (dependent).
The educational program can enhance the participants’ perceptions regarding EHR, but the described project cannot reject the null hypothesis that the intervention had no effects on the medication error rates. However, since the project was constricted by significant limitations, this finding is not conclusive.
Some of the research recommendations include the proposal to increase the sample size, have a greater timeframe for future projects, and consider randomizing the sample into two groups.
The project can also be used to recommend educational EHR efforts for the reduction of EHR resistance and the specific program that has been tested for the same purpose.
The sample was small (8 participants) and could not be expanded because the facility was small.
The data collection process was limited by the short time allocated to observing the results (4 weeks)
The project employed a quasi-experimental design. Since its sample was so small, trying to split it further was not feasible.
King, J., Patel, V., Jamoom, E. W., & Furukawa, M. F. (2014). Clinical benefits of electronic health record use: National findings. Health Services Research, 49(1pt2), 392–404. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12135
Liao, T. V., Rabinovich, M., Abraham, P., Perez, S., DiPlotti, C., Han, J., ... Honig, E. (2017). Evaluation of medication errors with implementation of electronic health record technology in the medical intensive care unit. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials, 9, 31-40. doi: 10.2147/OAJCT.S131211
Porterfield, A., Engelbert, K., & Coustasse, A. (2014). Electronic prescribing: Improving the efficiency and accuracy of prescribing in the ambulatory care setting. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 2014, 1-13
Palabindala, V., Pamarthy, A., & Jonnalagadda, N. R. (2016). Adoption of electronic health records and barriers. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 6(5), 1-3. doi: 10.3402/jchimp.v6.32643
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
The survey contained 11 individual items and used a Likert scale in which 1 stood for an extremely negative assessment of an aspect of usability or usefulness and 5 referred to an extremely positive one. The summary of the mean and standard deviation for each of the items before and after the intervention is presented in Table 1.
. The raw data indicate that the most common errors for the clinic include incorrect dosage, incorrect drug, and drug-drug interaction, as well as incorrect frequency and drug omission.
Table 4 presents the results of the paired t-test analysis of the errors that occurred and those that were reported. No statistically significant differences were found for either pair (p>0.05). Thus, the findings do not suggest that the program had an impact on medication error rates; a relationship between the independent variable and medication errors was not found.
Example changes in pre- and post-test scores can be found in Figure 4. Table 2 summarizes the results of analyzing the survey items with the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 demonstrate statistically significant results (p<=0.05).
Therefore, the intervention improved the perceptions of the participants regarding the effect of EHR on one’s performance and job effectiveness, the usefulness of EHR, the clarity of interacting with the system, the ease of EHR use, and the use of EHR for clinical care and research. The relationship between the independent variable (program) and perceptions (one of the dependent variables) was found.
Figure 1. The occupations of the participants.
Figure 2. Age of the participants.
Figure 3. Gender of the participants.
Figure 4. Example changes in survey results before and after the intervention.
As had been planned, the data were collected before and after the intervention using an already established survey tool and the clinic’s pharmacy call reports regarding medication errors.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.com
1
Table 2
Survey Analysis Results Summary
Item Significance (1-tailed)
Q1 0.04
Q2 0.07
Q3 0.04
Q4 0.04
Q5 0.05
Q6 0.03
Q7 0.04
Q8 0.04
Q9 0.03
Q10 0.04
Q11 0.244
Table 1
Survey Summary
Item Pre-Test Post-Test
Mean St. Deviation Mean St. Deviation
Q1 2.25 0.707 4.75 0.463
Q2 2.13 0.991 4.38 0.744
Q3 1.75 0.707 4.38 0.744
Q4 2.25 0.707 4.75 0.463
Q5 2.13 0.991 5 0
Q6 1.63 0.744 4.75 0.463
Q7 2.38 0.744 4.38 0.518
Q8 2 0.756 4.13 0.641
Q9 2.25 0.886 5 0
Q10 1.63 0.518 5 0
Q11 4 0.756 4.38 0.518
Table 3
Error Data Summary
Error Type Number
Occurred
Number
Occurred
Number
Reported
Number
Reported
Incorrect Drug 3 4 3 4
Incorrect Dose 5 3 6 4
Incorrect Generic Selection 0 1 0 1
Outdated Product 0 0 0 0
Drug Unavailable/Omission 3 2 2 3
Incorrect Dosage Form 1 2 0 3
Incorrect Patient 3 3 2 4
Allergic Drug Reaction 1 0 1 0
Drug-drug Interaction 4 2 4 2
Incorrect time 1 2 1 2
Incorrect Route 1 2 1 2
Incorrect Frequency 3 3 4 3
Illegible or Ambiguous Prescription 3 0 4 0
Other 3 4 3 4
Total 31 28 31 32
Table 4
Total Errors Analysis Results: Paired Samples Test
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 .587
Pair 2 .846