Publications by authors named "Amisha Rai"

6 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Evaluating Serial Strategies for Preventing Wrong-Patient Orders in the NICU.

Pediatrics 2017 May;139(5)

Division of Hospital Medicine.

Background: NICU patients have characteristics believed to increase their risk for wrong-patient errors; however, little is known about the frequency of wrong-patient errors in the NICU or about effective interventions for preventing these errors. We conducted a quality improvement study to evaluate the frequency of wrong-patient orders in the NICU and to assess the effectiveness of an ID reentry intervention and a distinct naming convention (eg, "Wendysgirl") for reducing these errors, using non-NICU pediatric units as a comparator.

Methods: Using a validated measure, we examined the rate of wrong-patient orders in NICU and non-NICU pediatric units during 3 periods: baseline (before implementing interventions), ID reentry intervention (reentry of patient identifiers before placing orders), and combined intervention (addition of a distinct naming convention for newborns).

Results: We reviewed >850 000 NICU orders and >3.5 million non-NICU pediatric orders during the 7-year study period. At baseline, wrong-patient orders were more frequent in NICU than in non-NICU pediatric units (117.2 vs 74.9 per 100 000 orders, respectively; odds ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.82). The ID reentry intervention reduced the frequency of errors in the NICU to 60.2 per 100 000 (48.7% reduction; < .001). The combined ID reentry and distinct naming interventions yielded an additional decrease to 45.6 per 100 000 (61.1% reduction from baseline; < .001).

Conclusions: The risk of wrong-patient orders in the NICU was significantly higher than in non-NICU pediatric units. Implementation of a combined ID reentry intervention and distinct naming convention greatly reduced this risk.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2863DOI Listing
May 2017

A national survey assessing the number of records allowed open in electronic health records at hospitals and ambulatory sites.

J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017 Sep;24(5):992-995

Department of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

To reduce the risk of wrong-patient errors, safety experts recommend limiting the number of patient records providers can open at once in electronic health records (EHRs). However, it is unknown whether health care organizations follow this recommendation or what rationales drive their decisions. To address this gap, we conducted an electronic survey via 2 national listservs. Among 167 inpatient and outpatient study facilities using EHR systems designed to open multiple records at once, 44.3% were configured to allow ≥3 records open at once (unrestricted), 38.3% allowed only 1 record open (restricted), and 17.4% allowed 2 records open (hedged). Decision-making centered on efforts to balance safety and efficiency, but there was disagreement among organizations about how to achieve that balance. Results demonstrate no consensus on the number of records to be allowed open at once in EHRs. Rigorous studies are needed to determine the optimal number of records that balances safety and efficiency.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx034DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7651980PMC
September 2017

Validating Fall Prevention Icons to Support Patient-Centered Education.

J Patient Saf 2017 Feb 22. Epub 2017 Feb 22.

From the *Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; †Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York; ‡Healthcare Systems Engineering Institute at Northeastern University, Boston; and §John S. Dykes Illustration, Sudbury, Massachusetts.

Introduction: Falls with injury are the most prevalent hospital adverse event. The objective of this project was to refine fall risk and prevention icons for a patient-centric bedside toolkit to promote patient and nurse engagement in accurately assessing fall risks and developing a tailored fall prevention plan.

Methods: Eighty-eight patients and 60 nurses from 2 academic medical centers participated in 4 iterations of testing to refine 6 fall risk and 10 fall prevention icons. During individual interviews, participants rated their satisfaction with the degree to which that icon represented the concept on a 4-point Likert scale, enabling computation of a Content Validity Index (CVI), and provided comments and suggestions for improvement. After reviewing CVI scores and feedback, the research team consulted with the illustrator to revise the icons.

Results: Content Validity Index scores improved after icon modifications. Icons that depicted multiple concepts required further iterations to be acceptable.

Discussion: Using icons to depict an accurate and easy-to-interpret fall risk assessment and intervention plan for all care team members including patients and family to follow should lead to improved adherence with that plan and decreased falls.

Conclusions: All 16 icons were refined and used to form the basis for a bedside fall prevention toolkit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000354DOI Listing
February 2017

Iterative user centered design for development of a patient-centered fall prevention toolkit.

Appl Ergon 2016 Sep 8;56:117-26. Epub 2016 Apr 8.

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Due to the large number of falls that occur in hospital settings, inpatient fall prevention is a topic of great interest to patients and health care providers. The use of electronic decision support that tailors fall prevention strategy to patient-specific risk factors, known as Fall T.I.P.S (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety), has proven to be an effective approach for decreasing hospital falls. A paper version of the Fall T.I.P.S toolkit was developed primarily for hospitals that do not have the resources to implement the electronic solution; however, more work is needed to optimize the effectiveness of the paper version of this tool. We examined the use of human factors techniques in the redesign of the existing paper fall prevention tool with the goal of increasing ease of use and decreasing inpatient falls. The inclusion of patients and clinical staff in the redesign of the existing tool was done to increase adoption of the tool and fall prevention best practices. The redesigned paper Fall T.I.P.S toolkit showcased a built in clinical decision support system and increased ease of use over the existing version.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.03.011DOI Listing
September 2016

Use of Temporary Names for Newborns and Associated Risks.

Pediatrics 2015 Aug 13;136(2):327-33. Epub 2015 Jul 13.

Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York;

Background: Because there can be no delay in providing identification wristbands to newborns, some hospitals assign newborns temporary first names such as Babyboy or Babygirl. These nondistinct naming conventions result in a large number of patients with similar identifiers in NICUs. To determine the level of risk associated with nondistinct naming conventions, we performed an intervention study to evaluate if assigning distinct first names at birth would result in a reduction in wrong-patient errors.

Methods: We conducted a 2-year before/after implementation study to examine the effect of a distinct naming convention that incorporates the mother's first name into the newborn's first name (eg, Wendysgirl) on the incidence of wrong-patient errors. We used the Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) tool, an established, automated tool for detecting the outcome of wrong-patient electronic orders. The RAR tool identifies orders placed on a patient that are retracted within 10 minutes and then placed by the same clinician on a different patient within the next 10 minutes.

Results: The reduction in RAR events post- versus preintervention was 36.3%. After accounting for clusters of orders within order sessions, the odds ratio of an RAR event post- versus preintervention was 0.64 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.97).

Conclusions: The study results suggest that nondistinct naming conventions are associated with an increased risk of wrong-patient errors and that this risk can be mitigated by changing to a more distinct naming convention.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0007DOI Listing
August 2015