Enhancing Patient Safety: A Cross-Sectional Study to Assess Medical Interns' Attitude and Knowledge About Medication Safety in Saudi Arabia

Introduction and aim Medication errors (MEs) pose a severe threat in the medical field. Since such errors are preventable, it is paramount for all healthcare workers to be educated on the matter. This study aimed to assess medical interns' attitudes and knowledge of medication safety and errors. We also aimed to validate current university programs to educate students about medication safety and errors. Methods A cross-sectional study that utilized a self-administered online questionnaire comprised 31 questions. The questionnaire was distributed via social media networks, such as WhatsApp, Twitter, email, Instagram, and Snapchat among 100 medical, pharmacy, and nursing interns in Saudi Arabia. The study population included both Saudi and non-Saudi interns. Results The majority of participants, comprising 92% (n=92), indicated that they were familiar with the definition of medication errors (ME). Additionally, 85% (n=85) expressed their willingness to report instances of MEs when medications were not prescribed but required. Moreover, 90% (n=90) of the surveyed individuals expressed their willingness to report MEs in situations where patients did not receive medications as prescribed. In cases where patients experienced harm and required treatment due to an ME, 91% (n=91) of respondents committed to reporting such incidents. A total of 52 (52%) respondents stated that they would report MEs regardless of whether they reached/harmed the patient. A good ME knowledge level was observed in 48% of respondents. A higher likelihood of good ME knowledge was significantly associated with safety reporting system (SRS) awareness and reporting MEs regardless of whether they reached/harmed the patient (p<0.05). College, awareness/attitude, or other demographic factors were not significantly related to ME knowledge (p>0.05). Conclusion This study showed that although interns in the healthcare field do have some knowledge about MEs, there is still a significant need to improve their knowledge. This can be achieved through various ways, one of which is by implementing this topic into the university curricula.

Failure to demonstrate effects of interruptions on diagnostic reasoning: three experiments

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic error is a major source of patient suffering. Researchshows that physicians experience frequent interruptions while being engaged with patients and indicate that diagnostic accuracy may be impaired as a result. Since most studies in the field are observational, there is as yet no evidence suggesting a direct causal link between being interrupted and diagnostic error. Theexperiments reported in this article were intended to assess this hypothesis.

METHODS

Three experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that interruptions hurt diagnostic reasoning and increase time on task. In the first experiment (N = 42), internal medicine residents, while diagnosing vignettes of actual clinical cases were interrupted halfway with a task unrelated to medicine, solving word-spotting puzzles and anagrams. In the second experiment (N = 78), the interruptions were medically relevant ones. In the third experiment (N = 30), we put additional time pressure on the participants. In all these experiments, a control group diagnosed the cases without interruption. Dependent variables were diagnostic accuracy and amount of time spent on the vignettes.

RESULTS

In none of the experiments interruptions were demonstrated to influence diagnostic accuracy. In Experiment 1: Mean of interrupted group was 0.88 (SD = 0.37) versus non- interrupted group 0.91 (SD = 0.32). In Experiment 2: Mean of interrupted group was 0.95 (SD = 0.32) versus non-interrupted group 0.94 (SD = 0.38). In Experiment 3: Mean of interrupted group was 0.42 (SD = 0.12) versus non-interrupted group 0.37 (SD = 0.08). Although interrupted residents in all experiments needed more time to complete the diagnostic task, only in Experiment 2, this effect was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

These three experiments, taken together, failed to demonstrate negative effects of interruptions on diagnostic reasoning. Perhaps physicians who are interrupted may still have sufficient cognitive resources available to recover from it most of the time.