This study investigates how the use of an electronic messaging system influences patient safety in the medication information process between home health care nurses and general practitioners. Focus group interviews and semistructured interviews with 34 nurses and general practitioners were applied, and the results show that using a messaging system in the clinical communication and collaboration led to nurses in home health care and general practitioners more easily connecting, medication information being more accessible and medication information having a higher quality. The results also revealed that the use of a messaging system caused errors in the medication information. However, according to the nurses in home health care and general practitioners, the overall conclusion was that medication information improved and thereby patient safety increased.
LeonardMGrahamSBonacumD. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:i85-i90.
2.
ØvretveitJ. Does Clinical Care Coordination Improve Quality and Save Money?London, UK: The Health Foundation; 2011.
3.
KaelberDCBatesDW. Health information exchange and patient safety. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40:S40-S45.
4.
MangoniAA. Predicting and detecting adverse drug reactions in old age: challenges and opportunities. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012;8:527-530.
5.
KohnLTCorriganJDonaldsonMS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
6.
TulnerLRKuperIMJAFrankfortSV. Discrepancies in reported drug use in geriatric outpatients: relevance to adverse events and drug-drug interactions. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2009;7:93-104.
7.
RognstadSStraandJ. [Do general practitioners know what medication community nurses give their shared patients?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2004;124:810-812.
8.
BakkenKLarsenELindbergPCRyghEHjortdahlP. [Insufficient communication and information regarding patient medication in the primary healthcare]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007;127:1766-1769.
9.
JensenSAOienTJacobsenGJohnsenR. [Erroneous drug charts—a health hazard?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2003;123:3598-3599.
10.
WekreLJSpigsetOSletvoldOSundJKGrimsmoA. Multidose drug dispensing and discrepancies between medication records. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:1-4.
11.
FoustJBNaylorMDBixbyMBRatcliffeSJ. Medication problems occurring at hospital discharge among older adults with heart failure. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2012;5:25-33.
12.
MelbyLHellesøR. Electronic exchange of discharge summaries between hospital and municipal care from health personnel’s perspectives. Int J Integr Care. 2010;10:e039.
13.
MelbyL.HellesøR. Electronic Interaction Across the Health Service: Lessons From the Lighthouse Projects. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU; 2008.
14.
HellesøRSorensenLLorensenM. Nurses’ information management across complex health care organizations. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:960-972.
15.
OrCKValdezRSCasperGR. Human factors and ergonomics in home care: current concerns and future considerations for health information technology. Work. 2009;33:201-209.
16.
Van De CastleBKimJPedreiraMLGPaivaAGoossenWBatesDW. Information technology and patient safety in nursing practice: an international perspective. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73:607-614.
17.
Cortelyou-WardKSwainAYeungT. Mitigating error vulnerability at the transition of care through the use of health IT Applications. J Med Syst. 2012;36:3825-3831.
18.
BlackADCarJPagliariC. The impact of e-health on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000387.
19.
Institute of Medicine. Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care. Washington, DCThe National Academies Press; 2012.
20.
AshJSBergMCoieraE. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:104-112.
21.
PirnejadHRolandBal. The Precarious Gap Between Information Technology and Patient Safety: Lessons From the Medication Systems. In: RowleyEWaringJ, eds. A Socio-Cultural Perspective on Patient Safety. Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2011:xv, 223.
22.
FoxWM. Sociotechnical System Principles and Guidelines: Past and Present. J Appl Behav Sci. 1995;31:91-105.
23.
TangeHJDietzJLHasmanAde Vries RobbePF. A generic model of clinical practice. Methods Inf Med. 2003;42:203-211.
24.
RectorALNowlanWAKaySGobleCAHowkinsTJ. A framework for modelling the electronic medical record. Methods Inf Med. 1993;32:109-119.
25.
WinogradTFloresF. Understanding Computers and Cognition : A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1986.
26.
Ministry of Health and Care Services. Teamwork 2.0: National Strategy for Electronic Cooperation in the Health and Social Sector 2008-2013. Oslo, Norway: Statens trykksakekspedisjon; 2008.
27.
LyngstadMHellesøR.MølstadK.SkarsgaardS.DønåsenM. From Technology Driven to User Driven Development of ICT Solutions in the Health Care Sector—the ELIN-K Project. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference of ACENDIO;March 25-26, 2011; Madeira.
28.
Helsedepartementet. Lov om Helseregistre og Behandling av Helseopplysninger (Helseregisterloven): Endret ved lov 15. Juni 2001 nr. 93 [Law on Health Records and Processing of Health Data (the Act) as Amended by Act 15 June 2001 No. 93]. Oslo, Norway: Helsedepartementet; 2002.
29.
The Norwegian Directory of Health. Handlingsplan 2011: Meldingsløftet i Kommunene 2010-2011 [Action Plan 2011: Message Taken From Municipalities 2010-2011]. Oslo, Norway: Helsedirektoratet; 2011.
30.
PolitDFBeckCT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2012.
31.
LambertSDLoiselleCG. Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:228-237.
32.
MorganDL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol. 1996;22:129-152.
33.
MorganDKreugerRA. When to Use Focus Groups and Why in Succesful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage;1993:3-19.
34.
KruegerRACaseyMA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2009.
35.
TjoraAH. Kvalitative Forskningsmetoder i Praksis [Qualitative Research Methods in Practice]. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal akademisk; 2012.
HellesøR. Ord over Skigard: Informasjonsutveksling og Samhandling Mellom Sykepleiere i Spesialisthelsetjenesten før og Etter Innføring av Elektronisk Pasientjournal [Word over the Fence: Information Exchange and Interaction between Nurses in Hospitals and Municipal Care Before and After the Introduction of Electronic Patient Records]. Oslo, Norway: Unipub; 2005.
38.
LærumH. Evaluation of Electronic Medical Records: A Clinical Task Perspective. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Technology and Science.
39.
PaulsenBGrimsmoA. God vilje—Dårlig Verktøy: omSamhandling Mellom Sykehus og Kommunale Omsorgstjenester ved Utskrivninger av Omsorgstrengende eldre. [Good Will—Poor Tools: About the Interaction between Hospital and Municipal Care when Elderly in Need of Care are discharged.] (Vol. A7877). Trondheim, Norway: SINTEF Helse; 2008.
40.
ChristensenT. Bringing the GP to the Forefront of EHR Development. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
41.
NVivo qualitative data analysis software [computer program]. Version 9: Burlington, MA: QSR International; 2010.
42.
TappenRM. Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2011.
43.
RahmnerPBGustafssonLLHolmstromIRosenqvistUTomsonG. Whose job is it anyway? Swedish general practitioners’ perception of their responsibility for the patient’s drug list. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8:40-46.
44.
CallenJMcIntoshJLiJ. Accuracy of medication documentation in hospital discharge summaries: a retrospective analysis of medication transcription errors in manual and electronic discharge summaries. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:58-64.
