↓ Skip to main content

Using total quality management approach to improve patient safety by preventing medication error incidences**

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using total quality management approach to improve patient safety by preventing medication error incidences**
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2531-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadin Yousef, Farah Yousef

Abstract

Whereas one of the predominant causes of medication errors is a drug administration error, a previous study related to our investigations and reviews estimated that the incidences of medication errors constituted 6.7 out of 100 administrated medication doses. Therefore, we aimed by using six sigma approach to propose a way that reduces these errors to become less than 1 out of 100 administrated medication doses by improving healthcare professional education and clearer handwritten prescriptions. The study was held in a General Government Hospital. First, we systematically studied the current medication use process. Second, we used six sigma approach by utilizing the five-step DMAIC process (Define, Measure, Analyze, Implement, Control) to find out the real reasons behind such errors. This was to figure out a useful solution to avoid medication error incidences in daily healthcare professional practice. Data sheet was used in Data tool and Pareto diagrams were used in Analyzing tool. In our investigation, we reached out the real cause behind administrated medication errors. As Pareto diagrams used in our study showed that the fault percentage in administrated phase was 24.8%, while the percentage of errors related to prescribing phase was 42.8%, 1.7 folds. This means that the mistakes in prescribing phase, especially because of the poor handwritten prescriptions whose percentage in this phase was 17.6%, are responsible for the consequent) mistakes in this treatment process later on. Therefore, we proposed in this study an effective low cost strategy based on the behavior of healthcare workers as Guideline Recommendations to be followed by the physicians. This method can be a prior caution to decrease errors in prescribing phase which may lead to decrease the administrated medication error incidences to less than 1%. This improvement way of behavior can be efficient to improve hand written prescriptions and decrease the consequent errors related to administrated medication doses to less than the global standard; as a result, it enhances patient safety. However, we hope other studies will be made later in hospitals to practically evaluate how much effective our proposed systematic strategy really is in comparison with other suggested remedies in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 5%
Other 10 5%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 81 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 47 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 7%
Engineering 9 4%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 82 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,826,387
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,369
of 7,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,924
of 315,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#99
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.