Identification of Sources of Evidence to answer the PICO(T) Question

Identification of Sources of Evidence to answer the PICO(T) Question

There are various resources can be utilized to search for sources of evidence required to support the effective answering of the PICOT question developed. Answering the PICOT question will support the development of an evidence-based intervention to sort out the issue of MAEs in inpatient care settings. The main sources of evidence include databases, journals, and websites, among others. The search across various databases using search terms such as “medication errors,” “causes of medication errors,” and “communication in medication,” among other search terms and phrases, resulted in multiple credible articles. However, not all resources were credible. The focus was paid to peer-reviewed journals with authoritative authors published within five years, and the accuracy of the results is based on the methods applied in the peer-reviewed journal. Three journal articles were selected: a cross-sectional study by (Shitu et al., 2020), a literature review by (Brigitta & Dhamanti, 2020), and a pre-post design project by (Murphy et al., 2022).

Findings from the Selected Sources of Evidence

The article by Brigitta and Dhamanti (2020) conducted a review of the literature focusing on a cause factor analysis to identify common causes of MAEs and the possible methods to prevent the occurrence of such errors. MAEs were mostly linked to factors related to poor and ineffective communication, the work environment, and individual human errors. The authors identify various MAE prevention methods, such as the improvement of nurse management resources, a clear chain of command, SBAR-like communication, a better work environment, staff training, and the use of clear schedules.

The article by Shitu et al. (2020) aimed to determine the frequency of MAEs, types of common MAEs, and major factors among patients in the emergency department in a teaching hospital. The study found that MAEs were common in ED and inpatient settings. The common MAEs are wrong time errors, unauthorized drug errors, drug omission errors, and dose error dosage errors. Consistently, the article by Murphy et al. (2022) focuses on the implementation of a Standardized Communication Tool in ICU settings. The study links poor communication to the occurrence of errors in ED and other care settings. Besides all other interventions, the authors note that effective communication is the most essential tool for effective and safe care in critical settings.

Relevance of the Findings

The findings from the selected articles are relevant to the PICOT questions for various reasons. The first step towards developing an effective evidence-based intervention is to understand the causes of the clinical issue addressed. The articles selected identify both the causes of the occurrence of medication errors and the nature of the medication administration errors in various care settings, such as in ED settings (Shitu et al., 2020) and in the ICU (Murphy et al., 2022). The next step is developing and selecting a suitable intervention. The selected articles, such as those of Brigitta & Dhamanti (2020) and Murphy et al. (2022), provide clear evidence-based interventions. Standardised communication is the most effective intervention to solve MAEs in inpatient settings (Brigitta & Dhamanti, 2020; Murphy et al., 2022).

Conclusion

MAEs are an issue of concern in relation to patient safety and quality of care. The use of evidence-based approaches can help nurses reduce and prevent MAEs, especially in inpatient care settings. The PICOT framework is a great tool that ensures the selection of the most suitable evidence to support the development of evidence-based interventions to prevent MAEs. The use of standardized communication can improve the efficiency of nurses in preventing MAEs.

 References

Brigitta, I. R., & Dhamanti, I. (2020). Literature Review: Cause Factor Analysis and an Effort to Prevent Medication Administration Error (MAE) at Hospital. Unnes Journal of Public Health, 9(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.15294/UJPH.V9I2.36470