Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Literature (Annotated Bibliography Sample)

Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Literature Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date of Submission Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Literature Medication errors are a significant public health issue and a primary cause of unnecessary patient damage worldwide. Solving this problem requires understanding the origins of these problems and creating effective solutions (Rodziewicz et al., 2018). Nurses administer drugs, a crucial patient safety measure. Medication administration errors (MAEs) occur most frequently during this phase, making it a crucial area for intervention. In light of this, implementing a double-check system during medication administration has been proposed as a potential solution to reduce the occurrence of MAEs and improve patient outcomes. This literature review seeks to critically appraise evidence-based literature on medication errors and nurses implementing a double-check system during medication administration in post-operative surgical patients within a tertiary care hospital. The PICOT question guiding this review is as follows: In post-operative surgical patients within a tertiary care hospital (P), does the implementation of a double-check system by nurses during medication administration (I) reduce the occurrence of medication errors (O) compared to the standard single-check procedure (C) within a hospital setting over six months (T)? Therefore, this literature review aims to assess the double-check system's effectiveness in reducing medication administration errors and associated harm. Critical Appraisal Tool This study used the JBI Checklist for Systematic Reviews as the critical appraisal tool to evaluate the selected articles. Utilizing the JBI Checklist will facilitate assessing methodological quality and identifying potential biases in the studies' design, conduct, and analysis (Munn et al., 2019). This appraisal tool was chosen because most of the reviewed studies are systematic reviews, and it is well-suited for such types of research. Systematic reviews provide the highest level of evidence for all types of research questions due to their comprehensive and rigorous approach to conducting literature searches and synthesizing multiple studies (Munn et al., 2019). By utilizing the JBI Checklist, the researchers aim to ensure the reliability and credibility of the selected articles, ultimately enhancing the validity of the study findings. This systematic technique will allow researchers to objectively evaluate systematic reviews and develop well-informed conclusions from high-quality research. This project will help healthcare practitioners make evidence-based decisions by rigorously assessing and following evidence-based practices. Annotative Bibliography Douglass, A. M., Elder, J., Watson, R., Kallay, T., Kirsh, D., Robb, W. G., Kaji, A. H., & Coil, C. J. (2018). A randomized controlled trial on the effect of a double check on the detection of medication errors. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 71(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.022 Douglass et al. (2018) investigate the impact of a double-check system on detecting medication errors in this randomized controlled trial. The study examines whether double-checking emergency department medicine administration can reduce error rates. The study is a randomized controlled trial with two groups: the intervention group, where two nurses double-check medicine delivery, and the control group, which uses the standard single-check approach. The researchers recruited participants from an emergency department and administered a simulated medication administration scenario to both groups. The study results reveal that the intervention group, which uses the double-check process, demonstrated a significantly higher medication error detection rate than the control group. The double-check system proved more effective in identifying errors during the simulated medication administration process, enhancing patient safety. The study's thorough design shows its quality. A randomized controlled trial minimizes confounding variables and infers causality. Using a simulated medication administration scenario also allows for standardized conditions and controlled testing of the double-check process. Studies and systematic reviews have shown that the double-check system can reduce medication errors and enhance patient safety in diverse healthcare settings. In a systematic review by Koyama et al. (2020), double-checking reduced medication administration errors. The CONSORT checklist for randomized controlled trials can be used to assess the study's quality. This tool evaluates the study's reporting, methodology, and transparency. Medication errors threaten patient safety, making the subject relevant. Detecting and preventing these errors in emergency departments is essential for patient safety. This study contributes valuable evidence on the effectiveness of a double-check system in detecting medication errors. The findings add to the growing body of research on the benefits of double-checking in medication administration and provide valuable insights for healthcare professionals and organizations seeking to enhance patient safety in emergency department settings. Westbrook, J. I., Li, L., Raban, M. Z., Woods, A., Koyama, A. K., Baysari, M. T., ... & White, L. (2021). Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of pediatric inpatients. BMJ quality & safety, 30(4), 320-330. Westbrook et al. (2021) explore the associations between double-checking and medication administration errors (MAEs) in pediatric inpatients in this direct observational study. The study aims to investigate whether implementing a double-check process during medication administration affects the occurrence of MAEs in a pediatric hospital setting. The researchers employ a direct observational method, where trained observers observe and record the medication administration process in the pediatric inpatient units. The study compares single-check and double-check mistake rates. The study found that double-checking reduces MAEs compared to single-checking. A double-check technique for medication administration improves patient safety in pediatric inpatients. Direct observation data collection shows the study's quality. Real-time medication administration monitoring ensures accurate and trustworthy error data. To support the findings, a study by Alsulami et al. (2014) showed that the effectiveness of double-checking was influenced by pediatric nurses' adherence during medication administration in a children's hospital. The STROBE checklist for observational studies can be used to assess the study's quality. This tool evaluates the study's reporting, methodology, and biases. The article is relevant to the patient safety as medication errors pose a significant risk to pediatric inpatients. By exploring the associations between double-checking and MAEs, the study provides valuable insights for healthcare professionals aiming to enhance patient safety in pediatric hospital settings. This study contributes to the growing evidence base on the effectiveness of double-checking in medication administration. The findings further support implementing a double-check process as a patient safety strategy in pediatric inpatient care, emphasizing its potential to reduce medication errors and improve patient outcomes. Manurung, J. M., Tarigan, E., & Tjitra, E. (2021). The Effect of Independent Double Check Implementation against the Six Correction Principle in Preparation and Administration of Injected Medication on Inpatients X Hospital, West Java. STRADA Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan, 10(2), 1582-1597. In this study, Manurung et al. (2021) investigate the effect of implementing an independent double-check system on the six correction principle during the preparation and administration of injected medication in Inpatients X Hospital, West Java. The study aims to evaluate whether the introduction of the double-check process aligns with the six correction principle to improve medication safety for inpatients. The researchers used a pre-test and post-test design to assess the impact of the independent double-check implementation on medication safety. They collect data on medication errors and adherence to the six correction principle before and after the intervention. The study involves a sample of healthcare professionals responsible for medication preparation and administration. The study results demonstrate a significant reduction in medication errors following the implementation of the independent double-check system. When paired with the six-correction principle, the double-check method improves pharmaceutical safety and reduces errors during preparation and delivery. A pre-test and post-test design, which compares outcomes before and after the intervention, shows the study's quality. This design enhances the study's internal validity by minimizing potential confounding factors. Studies have shown that independent double-checks can enhance medication safety and improve patient outcomes. A study by Booth et al. (2022) found that pharmacist-independent double checks played a significant role in effectively verifying outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy orders. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies can be used to assess study quality. This tool evaluates the study's methodology, biases, and design. Medication errors can harm inpatients, making the article vital to patient safety. Implementing strategies, such as the independent double-check system aligned with the six correction principle, is essential for enhancing medication safety and preventing patient harm. This study contributes valuable evidence on the effectiveness of the independent double-check system in conjunction with the six correction principle in improving medication s...