Cited by 4Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The efficiency–thoroughness trade-off after implementation of electronic medication management: a qualitative study in paediatric oncology

Baysari, Melissa T, van Dort, Bethany A, Prgomet, Mirela, Zheng, Wu Yi, Raban, Magdalena Z, Dalla-Pozza, Luciano, Mccullagh, Cheryl, Westbrook, Johanna·2020·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

Objective The efficiency-thoroughness trade-off (ETTO) principle proposes that people and organizations are often required to make a trade-off between being efficient and being thorough, as it is difficult to be both efficient and thorough at the same time. This study aimed to compare pre- electronic medication management system (EMMS) expectation of how an EMMS is likely to impact on efficiency and thoroughness to post-EMM experiences of an EMMS and the ETTO. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting A paediatric oncology cancer centre in a large paediatric tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia. Participants Forty-four semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses and pharmacists six months prior to and two years following implementation of an EMMS. Results Prior to EMM implementation, staff identified a number of areas of work where both efficiency and thoroughness were expected to improve with EMM. These included ease of accessibility of the medication record, and organization and legibility of medication information. Following EMMS implementation, staff reported improvements in these areas. However, the EMMS was perceived to drive thoroughness (safety) benefits at the expense of efficiency (time). Measures to improve safety in the EMMS enforced processes that required time, such as medication double-checking procedures. Conclusions Overall, staff were aware of the competitive interplay between thoroughness and efficiency and reported that introduction of an…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa086

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baysari, M. T., van Dort, B. A., Prgomet, M., Zheng, W. Y., Raban, M. Z., Dalla-Pozza, L., Mccullagh, C., & Westbrook, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Discipline of Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Cancer Centre for Children, The Children Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
  • Sydney Children's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Baysari, Melissa T
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
2020-09
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
511-516
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W3047860783
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (Partnership Grant 1094878)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
electronic medication management systems, pediatric oncology, drug safety, employee perceptions
MeSH terms
Australia, Child, Electronics, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Neoplasms, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review