↓ Skip to main content

Using Positive Deviance to reduce medication errors in a tertiary care hospital

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Using Positive Deviance to reduce medication errors in a tertiary care hospital
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40360-016-0082-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Teixeira Ferracini, Alexandre R. Marra, Claudio Schvartsman, Oscar F. Pavão dos Santos, Elivane da Silva Victor, Neila Maria Marques Negrini, Wladimir Mendes Borges Filho, Michael B. Edmond

Abstract

The number of medication errors occurring in healthcare is large and many are preventable. To analyze medication errors and evaluate whether Positive Deviance is effective in reducing them. The study was divided into three phases: (2011- Phase I, control period; 2012 - Phase II, manager intervention, and 2013 - Phase III, frontline healthcare worker intervention). In Phases II and III, the Positive Deviance method (PD) was used to mitigate medication errors classified as "C" and higher according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP). The errors reported were compared across the three study phases, as well as by the location of the hospital unit, shift, cause, consequence, and the professional associated with the error. A total of 4013 reported medication errors were analyzed. The largest number of errors occurred at the time the medications were administered, accounting for 35.5 % of errors in Phase I; 43.1 % in Phase II, and 55.6 % in Phase III. Nursing staff was most commonly associated with errors; 46.4 % of errors in Phase I, 48.5 % in Phase II, and 58.7 % in Phase III. With each intervention, a decrease was observed in the reported error rate of 0.12 (CI 95 %, 0.18 to 0.07). Positive Deviance proved to be effective, primarily when healthcare professionals who were involved in errors participated, as was observed in Phase III of this study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Lecturer 4 6%
Professor 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 27 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Psychology 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 28 40%
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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,638,545
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#193
of 450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,277
of 370,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 370,719 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.