Early experiences with the multidose drug dispensing system – A matter of trust?

References

• Åkerlund M, Vissgården A. ApoDos – Apotekets dosexpedierade läkemedel. Lakemedelsboken 2009/2010. Stockholm: Apoteket AB; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Gombos A. Multidosepakking er et godt system [Multi-dose packaging is a good system]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2004;124:1144.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Price Waterhouse Coopers. Multidosepakking av legemidler En samfunnsøkonomisk vurdering av tiltak [Multidose drug dispensing An economic assessment of measures]. Oslo: 12 January 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Heier KF, Olsen VK, Rognstad S, Straand J, Toverud EL. Helsepersonells oppfatninger om multidosepakkede legemidler [Healthcare providers’ experience with multi-dose packaged medicines]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2007;127:2382–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergman A, Olsson J, Carlsten A, Waern M, Fastbom J. Evaluation of the quality of drug therapy among elderly patients in nursing homes. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007; 25:9–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnell K, Fastbom J. Multi-dose drug dispensing and inappropriate drug use: A nationwide register-based study of over 700,000 elderly. Scand J Prim Health Care 2008;26:86–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen A, Haugbolle L. The impact of an automated dose-dispensing scheme on user compliance, medication understanding, and medication stockpiles. Res Social Adm Pharm 2007;3:265.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malterud K. Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning: En innføring [Qualitative methods in medical research An introduction]. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgi A. Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method. Giorgi A, Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press; 1985. 8–22.
   Google Scholar
• Malterud K. Shared understanding of the qualitative research process. Guidelines for the medical researcher. Fam Pract 1993;10:201–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:299–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aarts J, Berg M. Same systems, different outcomes: Comparing the implementation of computerized physician order entry in two Dutch hospitals. Methods Inf Med 2006;45: 53–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mabeck H. Elektronisk medicinering i klinisk praksis [Computerized Physician Order Entry system in clinical practice]. København: Dansk Sundhedsinstitut; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Halbesleben JR, Wakefield DS, Wakefield BJ. Work-arounds in health care settings: Literature review and research agenda. Health Care Manage Rev 2008;33:2–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saleem JJ, Russ AL, Justice CF, Hagg H, Ebright PR, Woodbridge PA, . Exploring the persistence of paper with the electronic health record. Int J Med Inform 2009;78: 618–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddens A. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Polity Press; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Bachmann R. Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization Studies 2001;22:337–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten. Gjennomgang og forbedring av arbeidet med multidose i Larvik kommune [Review and improvement of work with multidose dispensed drugs in Larvik]. Oslo; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Wekre LJ, Spigset O, Sletvold O, Sund JK, Grimsmo A. Multidose drug dispensing and discrepancies between medication records. Qual Saf Health Care 2010 Oct;19(5):e42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11:104–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossen C. Test the artefact – develop the organization. The implementation of an electronic medication plan. Int J Med Inform 2007;76:13–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidle U. Implementing technology to improve medication safety in healthcare facilities: A literature review. J N Y State Nurses Assoc 2007Fall–2008 Winter;38:4–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grissinger M, Globus NJ. How technology affects your risk of medication errors. Nursing (Lond) 2004;34:36–41.
   Google Scholar
• Bakken K, Larsen E, Lindberg PC, Rygh E, Hjortdahl P. Mangelfull kommunikasjon om legemiddelbruk i primærhelsetjenesten [Insufficient communication and information regarding patient medication in the primary healthcare]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2007;127:1766–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jensen SA, Oien T, Jacobsen G, Johnsen R. Feil i medikamentkortene – en helserisiko? [Erroneous drug charts - a health hazard?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003;123:3598–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rahmner PB, Gustafsson LL, Holmström I, Rosenqvist U, Tomson G. Whose job is it anyway? Swedish general practitioners’ perception of their responsibility for the patient's drug list. Ann Fam Med 2010;8:6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayegan E. Knowledge representation for relevance ranking of patient-record contents in primary-care situations. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Halvorsen KH, Ruths S, Granas AG, Viktil KK. Multidisciplinary intervention to identify and resolve drug-related problems in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Prim Health Care 2010;28:82–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer LA, Hurley AC, Dolan N. Nurses’ reported thinking during medication administration. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007;39:82–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Cooper J, Demonaco HJ, Gallivan T, . Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:35–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar