For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
48
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      171
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Design, Development, and Evaluation of the Blood Collection Management Workstation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To design and develop a blood collection management workstation with high usability to reduce the risk of preanalytical errors and improve patient safety.

          Methods

          A five-phase mobile application development lifecycle model (MADLC) and experience-based co-design (EBCD) were used for design and development. Subsequently, the blood collection management workstation was evaluated using the Chinese System Usability Scale (SUS) in a general ward setting from January to June 2021.

          Results

          It was used on 2593 in-patients who underwent phlebotomy with 12,378 tubes being labeled. The rate of errors and meantime for blood sampling were decreased compared with the same period in the previous year. A total of 14 nurses agreed to participate in the evaluation, and the overall raw SUS score was 69.26 ± 10.39, which indicated above average results.

          Conclusion

          The blood collection management workstation has shown the potential to decrease errors and improve working efficiency in a clinical setting. The study also identified some weaknesses, which will be amended in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Erik von Elm, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger … (2014)
          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
          Article 0 comments Cited 2471 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

            Trisha Greenhalgh, Lisa Hinton, Teresa Finlay … (2019)
            Abstract Background Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. Objectives To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. Search strategy Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. Inclusion criteria Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings. Results Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop. Conclusion The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.
            Article 0 comments Cited 318 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US

              Martin Makary, Michael Daniel (2016)
              Article 0 comments Cited 301 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Journal ID (publisher-id): rmhp
                Title: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
                Publisher: Dove
                ISSN (Electronic): 1179-1594
                Publication date (Electronic): 31 October 2022
                Publication date Collection: 2022
                Volume: 15
                Pages: 2015-2022
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Nursing, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
                [2 ]Department of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
                [3 ]Department of Medical Informatics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
                [4 ]Department of Urology, Urologist, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Qinghua Zhao, Department of Nursing, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University , 1st Youyi Road, Chongqing, 400016, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 023 89012206, Email qh20063@163.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0845-7526
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6989-5971
                Article
                Publisher ID: 384866
                DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S384866
                PMC ID: 9635477
                PubMed ID: 36341474
                SO-VID: 388c601f-9928-4f1b-8dbe-8af8ab2a796b
                Copyright © © 2022 Huang et al.
                License:

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                Date received : 03 August 2022
                Date accepted : 18 October 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 1, References: 52, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Subject: Original Research

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Social policy & Welfare
                Keywords: patient safety,identification,pre-analytical phase,phlebotomy,technology
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Social policy & Welfare
                Keywords: patient safety, identification, pre-analytical phase, phlebotomy, technology

                Comments

                Comment on this article