Oncology nurses' beliefs and attitudes towards the double-check of chemotherapy medications: a cross-sectional survey study

Background Double-checking medications is a widely used strategy to enhance safe medication administration in oncology, but there is little evidence to support its effectiveness. The proliferated use of double-checking may be explained by positive attitudes towards checking among nurses. This study investigated oncology nurses’ beliefs towards double-checking medication, its relation to beliefs about safety and the influence of nurses’ level of experience and proximity to clinical care. Methods This was a survey of all oncology nurses in three Swiss hospitals. The questionnaire contained 41 items on 6 domains. Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors linked to strong beliefs in the effectiveness of double-checking. Results Overall, 274 (70%) out of 389 nurses responded (91% female, mean age 37 (standard deviation = 10)). Nurses reported very strong beliefs in the effectiveness and utility of double-checking. They were also confident about their own performance in double-checking. Nurses widely believed that double checking produced safety (e.g., 86% believed errors of individuals could be intercepted with double-checks). In contrast, some limitations of double-checking were also recognized, e.g., 33% of nurses reported that double checking caused frequent interruptions and 28% reported that double-checking was done superficially in their unit. Regression analysis revealed that beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking were mainly associated with beliefs in safety production (p < 0.001). Nurses with experience in barcode scanning held less strong beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking (p = 0.006). In contrast to our expectations, there were no differences in beliefs between any professional sub-groups. Conclusion The widespread and strong believe in the effectiveness of double-checking is linked to beliefs about safety production and co-exists with acknowledgement of the major disadvantages of double-checking by humans. These results are important factors to consider when any existing procedures are adapted or new checking procedures are implemented. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.7892/boris.119535
PID pmid:29454347
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
PID pmc:PMC5816392
PID https://www.doi.org/10.7892/boris.11953510.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/oncology-nurses-beliefs-and-attitudes-towards-the-doublecheck-of-chemotherapy-medications(9f568877-53ae-4b68-96ea-b09d6743cb86).html
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.7892/boris.119535
URL http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9.pdf
URL https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9.pdf
URL https://core.ac.uk/display/153217892
URL http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5816392
URL https://boris.unibe.ch/119535/
URL https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/54604469/Oncology_nurses_beliefs_and_attitudes.pdf
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2788426080
URL https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6963
URL https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816392/
URL https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-2937-9/sharedit
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Open Access
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Schwappach, D L B
Author Taxis, Katja
Author Pfeiffer, Yvonne
Contributor PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From Europe PubMed Central; PubMed Central; Datacite; UnpayWall; DOAJ-Articles; NARCIS; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph; Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)
Hosted By Europe PubMed Central; BMC Health Services Research; University of Groningen Digital Archive; Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS)
Publication Date 2018-02-17
Additional Info
Field Value
Country Switzerland
Format application/pdf
Language English
Resource Type Other literature type; Article; UNKNOWN
keyword 360 Social problems and amp; social services
keyword 610 Medicine and amp; health
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::b3bb55dce6597b0f54e371608268f00c
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 25 December 2020, 11:31 (CET)
Created 25 December 2020, 11:31 (CET)