- NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2 Evidenced-Based Literature: Search and Organization
Introduction:
Sequelae of the complications of medical errors include inadequate or mixed response to therapy and aggravation of the patient’s condition. To minimize medical errors, healthcare personnel should be given access to the latest and most trustworthy information.
Evidence-based research is also an integral part of this process in that it provides clinicians with the knowledge and study results data to use as a reference in making their decisions. However, the information is so vast that knowing what and how to organize it becomes crucial. Yao et al. (2020) conclude that with evidence-based book search and organizing techniques, healthcare providers acquire more accurate diagnoses, make patients safer, and provide better care.
Statement of Patient Safety Issue
Diagnostic errors occur when a health problem is misdiagnosed or undiagnosed, and this can harm the patient or lead to suboptimal outcomes (Albahri et al., 2023) It is now a concern for patient safety. Research has indicated that medical mishaps are a major cause of what goes wrong in the healthcare sector. Diagnostic errors may lead to many bad things, especially injury to the patient even death. To address this challenge, we have to find a way of enhancing the evaluation process and reducing errors.
The focus of this PICOT is electronic decision support systems (I), which are software tools that support doctors in making evidence-based decisions (Zajac et al., 2021). The objective of the PICOT study is to collect data that could demonstrate the effectiveness of computer-based decision support systems in reducing the rate of diagnostic errors.
The goal is to address the current issue or gap in healthcare, where diagnostic errors are still a huge threat to patient safety. Computer decision support system’s impact on diagnosis accuracy, patient outcomes, and quality of care within the adult primary care context can be traced by healthcare workers in the most recent study (Yao et al., 2020).
PICOT Question
The PICOT question that was made to deal with this problem is this: If computer decision support systems (I) are used in primary care settings for adults (P) instead of normal clinical practice (C), do diagnostic mistakes (O) happen less often during the diagnostic process (T)?
Narrative of Search Strategy
To identify the optimal evidence for the PICOT question concerning the application of electronic decision support systems in reducing medical errors in adult primary care settings, a well-designed research plan could be used. Selecting appropriate sources is the beginning of the research. In such instances, sources such as PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library are commonly applied for healthcare research. Most important is to search databases or sources of the so-called “gray literature” that are experts in a specific field and could provide you with useful data (Freynhagen et al., 2019).
NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2 Evidenced-Based Literature: Search and Organization
The second stage is to create a search query using buzzwords and several sentences in one particular language. These words can be used with this PICOT question: “diagnostic errors,” “primary care,” “electronic decision support systems and “reduction”. The ideas can be appropriately combined using the Boolean operators, “AND” and “OR”. Cuts and wildcards are used for selecting different versions of keywords.
You may use the search terms “diagnosis errors” OR “diagnosis errors” AND “primary care” OR “general practice” AND “electronic decision support systems” OR “clinical decision support systems” AND “reduce” OR “decrease” OR “minimize” and retrieve studies on a diagnostic error, primary care settings, computer decision support systems, and error reduction (Lockwood et al., 2019).
Once the study question has been defined, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be helpful to avoid misunderstandings of the results. Studies from general care settings for adults, research using computer decision support systems, and findings on how frequent are diagnosis errors could all be contributors.
Research in infant or critical care areas may not qualify. Limiting the search to a certain type of publication, such as systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, or cohort studies (Miao et al., 2019), could also help in locating the best data. This method is useful for researchers to sift through the papers and choose the strongest supporting data to resolve the PICOT problem. This approach prevents missing critical data and ensures that the related studies are incorporated (Greenhalgh et al., 2019).
Databases and Keywords
Several sources would provide the best evidence for the PICOT question on electronic decision support systems implementation in reducing diagnostic errors in primary care settings in the population of adults. One of such is PubMed, which is a popular database for biological research (Wang et al., 2022).
It has a large number of papers from a lot of medical journals that can educate you a lot. Other databases like Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library may also be beneficial, as they present multiple perspectives and contain a great deal of medical literature. Another approach to obtaining research material is to search sources for that field of study, such as PsycINFO or Scopus (Fàbregues et al., 2022).
In preparing the search plan, you need to employ appropriate terms and short language sentences. This PICOT question revolves around “diagnostic errors,” “primary care,” “electronic decision support systems,” and “reduction.” Similar and opposite words should be taken into account. You can utilize Boolean operators such as “AND” and “OR” to appropriate the words correctly. One would use a search term such as “diagnostic errors” OR “misdiagnosis” AND “primary care” OR “general practice” AND “electronic decision support systems” OR “clinical decision support systems” AND “reduction” OR “decrease” OR “minimize”. This search strategy ensures that articles discussing primary care diagnostic errors, computer decision support systems, and error reduction are located (Bell et al., 2020).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The clear specifics regarding which articles are to be included and excluded are critical during the searching phase to determine which ones will be used for further review. This PICOT question could be informed by research conducted in general care settings for adults, treatments that utilize computer decision support systems, and information on how frequent diagnosis errors are.
Studies focusing on the use of computer decision support systems to reduce primary care diagnostic errors, studies conducted in pediatric or specialized care settings, or papers not written in English may not be considered (Richens et al., 2020). After the sources and the search methods have been chosen, a given number of articles is found. The number of pieces that are retained is determined by the level of thoroughness of the research and how clear the guidelines are on what should be included and what should not.
NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2 Evidenced-Based Literature: Search and Organization
By conducting the research, the repeatability rate may increase (Mariano et al., 2021). However, most of the time, several hundred or even thousands of pieces must be gathered first. In the beginning, 78 records were identified in the quest for information on the use of computerized decision support systems to reduce medical errors in primary care settings for adults. Only twelve of them were eliminated due to duplication, which gave 66 special books for further research. The inclusion criteria were used for the titles and the abstracts of these articles and this resulted to the exclusion of 20 papers that should have met the criteria. The last 46 works were then subjected to full-text review after this sorting process. All twelve were selected due to their relevance to PICOT (Greenhalgh et al., 2019).
These studies clarified that they were on medical errors and the use of computer decision support systems in the primary care settings for adults. They demonstrated that these approaches effectively reduce medical errors and enhance patient outcomes (Greenhalgh et al., 2019).
Ultimately, the papers which are retained are selected since they are in favor of the study objectives, contain valuable information, and offer quality evidence. They are to address the PICOT question and to demonstrate the level of performance of computer decision support tools used to reduce diagnostic errors in primary care for adults. The publications selected can serve as a base for researchers’ ideas and studies because the selection process attempts to keep the information collected accurate and consistent (Miao et al., 2019).
Relatability with Issue
The 12 pieces directly address the problem of reducing diagnostic errors in the preventive care of adults using a computer-based decision support system. These works presented that medical errors occur, and they demonstrated how computer decision support systems could improve precision in diagnosis and patient outcomes (Salvador et al., 2019). The papers discuss the effectiveness of these systems in aiding doctors to make diagnoses by providing them assistance in analyzing clinical data and prompting them to base decisions on facts.
Many good studies addressed the characteristics and functions of electronic decision support systems, how they are used in primary care, and how this reduces the number of diagnostic errors made. These papers contain the entire essence of the problem and provide a large amount of information that can be used for supporting the usage of electronic decision support systems, which make diagnoses more accurate, and patients safer in general care settings for adults (Richens et al., 2020).
Conclusion
To reduce medical errors that pose serious risks to patients, healthcare workers should get access to the most recent and precise information. A comprehensive search with reliable keywords and relevant sources would help to locate useful articles.
The guidelines imply what to include and what not to include so that only the most pertinent study is preserved. Twelve papers were selected as they specifically discussed the PICOT question of utilizing electronic decision support systems to reduce diagnostics errors in adults within primary care settings. Read more about our sample NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 3 for complete information about this class.
References
Albahri, A. S., Duhaim, A. M., Fadhel, M. A., Alnoor, A., Baqer, N. S., Alzubaidi, L., Albahri, O. S., Alamoodi, A. H., Bai, J., Salhi, A., Santamaría, J., Ouyang, C., Gupta, A., Gu, Y., & Deveci, M. (2023). A systematic review of trustworthy and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare: Assessment of quality, bias risk, and data fusion. Information Fusion.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.03.008
Bell, S. K., Delbanco, T., Elmore, J. G., Fitzgerald, P. S., Fossa, A., Harcourt, K., Leveille, S. G., Payne, T. H., Steinmetz, R. A., Walker, J., & DesRoches, C. M. (2020). Frequency and types of patient-reported errors in electronic health record ambulatory care notes. JAMA Network Open, 3(6).
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5867
Fàbregues, S., Mumbardó, C.A., Escalante, E. L.B., Hong, Q. N., Edelstein, D., Vanderboll, K., & Fetters, M. D. (2022). Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104239
Freynhagen, R., Parada, H. A., Ospina, C. A. C., Chen, J., Emril, D. R., Villacorta, F. J. F., Franco, H., Ho, K. Y., Solares, A. L., Li, C. C. F., Alvarado, A. M., Nimmaanrat, S., Santos, M. D., & Andrade, D. C. A. (2019). Current understanding of the mixed pain concept: A brief narrative review. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 35(6), 1011–1018.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1552042
Greenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019). Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expectations, 22(4), 785–801.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888
Lockwood, C., Santos, K. B. D., & Pap, R. (2019). Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: Scoping review methods. Asian Nursing Research, 13(5), 287–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002
Mariano, D. H., Hernández, L. C., Zorita, A. L., Duque, O. P., & Santos, F. G. (2021). A review of strategies for building energy management system: Model predictive control, demand side management, optimization, and fault detection & diagnosis. Journal of Building Engineering, 33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101692
Miao, M., Wang, J., Wen, S., & Ma, J. (2019). Publicly verifiable database scheme with efficient keyword search. Information Sciences, 475, 18–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.09.067
Richens, J. G., Lee, C. M., & Johri, S. (2020). Improving the accuracy of medical diagnosis with causal machine learning. Nature Communications, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17419-7
Salvador, J. A. O., Marco, G. C., & Arquero, R. A. (2019). Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(2).
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567
Wang, B., Zhu, Y., Li, D., & Wu, C. (2022). Evidence-based accident prevention and its application to hazardous chemical storage accident prevention. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 160, 274–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.02.020
Yao, X., Florez, I. D., Zhang, P., Zhang, C., Zhang, Y., Wang, C., Liu, X., Nie, X., Wei, B., & Ghert, M. A. (2020). Clinical research methods for treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, screening, and prevention: A narrative review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 13(2), 130–136.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12384
Zajac, S., Woods, A., Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Holladay, C. L. (2021). Overcoming challenges to teamwork in healthcare: A team effectiveness framework and evidence-based guidance. Frontiers in Communication, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445
Seeking guidance for your NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2? Our team of experts is available to assist you. Contact us today for support.
Appendix
