FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2734048467> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2734048467 endingPage "82.e1" @default.
• W2734048467 startingPage "74" @default.
• W2734048467 abstract "Study objective The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. Methods Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. Results Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error. The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error." @default.
• W2734048467 created "2017-07-14" @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5001249251 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5005083955 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5025565128 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5027076126 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5034021881 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5066664498 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5076058604 @default.
• W2734048467 creator A5075807761 @default.
• W2734048467 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2734048467 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2734048467 title "A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of a Double Check on the Detection of Medication Errors" @default.
• W2734048467 cites W1995980256 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2029504673 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2031086682 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2052522690 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2060068271 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2063729064 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2067068312 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2071158519 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2079560112 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2083372027 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2091832668 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2103842766 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2109054199 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2121802034 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2141561274 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2143555740 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2153370910 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2154426360 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2160637457 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2160841074 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W2420482934 @default.
• W2734048467 cites W4378951071 @default.
• W2734048467 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.022" @default.
• W2734048467 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28669554" @default.
• W2734048467 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2734048467 type Work @default.
• W2734048467 sameAs 2734048467 @default.
• W2734048467 citedByCount "25" @default.
• W2734048467 countsByYear W27340484672018 @default.
• W2734048467 countsByYear W27340484672019 @default.
• W2734048467 countsByYear W27340484672020 @default.
• W2734048467 countsByYear W27340484672021 @default.
• W2734048467 countsByYear W27340484672022 @default.
• W2734048467 countsByYear W27340484672023 @default.
• W2734048467 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5001249251 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5005083955 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5025565128 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5027076126 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5034021881 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5066664498 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5075807761 @default.
• W2734048467 hasAuthorship W2734048467A5076058604 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C126322002 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C141071460 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C156957248 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C159110408 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C168563851 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C194828623 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C23131810 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C44249647 @default.
• W2734048467 hasConceptScore W2734048467C71924100 @default.
• W2734048467 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2734048467 hasLocation W27340484671 @default.
• W2734048467 hasLocation W27340484672 @default.
• W2734048467 hasOpenAccess W2734048467 @default.
• W2734048467 hasPrimaryLocation W27340484671 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W1967947002 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2026204904 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2074792758 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2103093342 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2142404366 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2292331776 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2594100652 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W2747242955 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W3194292461 @default.
• W2734048467 hasRelatedWork W4318763410 @default.
• W2734048467 hasVolume "71" @default.
• W2734048467 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2734048467 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2734048467 magId "2734048467" @default.
• W2734048467 workType "article" @default.