Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Syyrilä, Tiina
• Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, Katri
• Härkänen, Marja

Titel

Communication issues contributing to medication incidents: Mixed‐method analysis of hospitals’ incident reports using indicator phrases based on literature

Ist Teil von

• Journal of clinical nursing, 2020-07, Vol.29 (13-14), p.2466-2481

Ort / Verlag

England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Wiley Online Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Aim To identify the types and frequencies of communication issues (communication pairs, person related, institutional, structural, process and prescription‐related issues) detected in medication incident reports and to compare communication issues that caused moderate or serious harm to patients. Background Communication issues have been found to be among the main contributing factors of medication incidents, thus necessitating communication enhancement. Design A sequential exploratory mixed‐method design. Methods Medication incident reports from Finland (n = 500) for the year 2015 in which communication was marked as a contributing factor were used as the data source. Indicator phrases were used for searching communication issues from free texts of incident reports. The detected issues were analysed statistically, qualitatively and considering the harm caused to the patient. Citations from free texts were extracted as evidence of issues and were classified following main categories of indicator phrases. The EQUATOR’s SRQR checklist was followed in reporting. Results Twenty‐eight communication pairs were identified, with nurse–nurse (68.2%; n = 341), nurse–physician (41.6%; n = 208) and nurse–patient (9.6%; n = 48) pairs being the most frequent. Communication issues existed mostly within unit (76.6%, n = 383). The most commonly identified issues were digital communication (68.2%; n = 341), lack of communication within a team (39.6%; n = 198), false assumptions about work processes (25.6%; n = 128) and being unaware of guidelines (25.0%; n = 125). Collegial feedback and communication from patients and relatives were the preventing issues. Moderate harm cases were often linked with lack of communication within the unit, digital communication and not following guidelines. Conclusions The interventions should be prioritised to (a) enhancing communication about work‐processes, (b) verbal communication about digital prescriptions between professionals, (c) feedback among professionals and (f) encouraging patients to communicate about medication. Relevance to clinical practice Upon identifying the most harmful and frequent communication issues, interventions to strengthen medication safety can be implemented.